My clarifications and explanations within quoted statements and quoted documents appear inside [ ]

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL

""בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

Traditionally transliterated as: “Bereshit bara Elohim et HaShamayim v'et HaAretz” and traditionally translated as: “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” -- Genesis 1:1

In his famous commentary on the very first word of the Torah, namely, “בְּרֵאשִׁית” “Bereshit” (“In the Beginning”), Rabbi Salomon de Troyes (famously known to the Jewish World as Rashi, being the acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, b. 1040 - d. 1105) states:

“Rabbi Yitzchak said that it was not necessary for the Torah to begin except with [the Commandment]: ‘This month shall be for you [the beginning of months.’ -- Exodus 12:2], since this Commandment is the first Commandment that Israel was commanded [to observe as a nation]. And what is the reason that [instead] it [the Torah] begins with: ‘In the Beginning’? [This is] because of [the verse]: ‘The Strength of His Deeds He declared to His People, [in order] to give them the heritage of the nations.’ (Psalms 111:6). For, if the nations of the World should say to Israel: ‘You are thieves, because you have seized by force the lands of the seven [Canaanite] nations’, they [the Jewish people] could reply: ‘The entire World belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. He created it and distributed [possession of] it in whatever manner was appropriate in His Eyes. Of His own Will, He gave [possession of] it [the Land of Israel] to them [the Canaanite nations], and of His own Will, He took [possession of] it [the Land of Israel] from them [the Canaanite nations] and gave [possession of] it [the Land of Israel] to us [the Jewish people].’”

(Rashi on Genesis 1:1)

And, although -- in fulfillment of Prophecy (see Deuteronomy 30:1-5; Isaiah 54:7; Ezekiel 36:18-35 & 39:28-29; and Amos 9:14-15) -- the Jewish people have now returned to and have resurrected their ancestral nation-state (i.e., a State comprising the Jewish nation as its majority population) in the biblical Land of Israel, the Gentile nations do, indeed, claim that we are thieves who have seized the Land illegally from its “rightful owners”, namely, the “Palestinian” Arabs.

For most of the international community, the claim of an illegal Jewish occupation of “Palestinian” Arab territories is limited to the four post-1967 districts of (1) Judea (located south of Jerusalem), (2) Samaria (located north of Jerusalem), (3) the eastern portion of Jerusalem (which three areas the World denominates as the “West Bank”, because that was the new name given thereto by Jordan during its illegal Occupation thereof from 1948 to 1967) and (4) Gaza (despite Israel’s expulsion of all Jewish residents thereof and withdrawal of all of its military forces therefrom in August 2005).

The internationally-accepted claim that Gaza has been continuously occupied by Israel since 1967 (despite the fact that, except in response to Gaza’s periodic terrorist assaults against Israel, there has been no Israeli presence in Gaza since August 2005, and despite the fact that Israel does not perform any functions of government in Gaza) requires further comment, because this claim illustrates the extent to which international law has been perverted, and international organizations have abandoned or compromised their original missions, in order to justify labeling the “Palestinian” Arab war against the Jewish State as being legitimate “resistance” to Occupation. The claim that Israel has continuously occupied Gaza since June 1967 is based upon (a) the false premise promulgated by the U.N. system (including, unsurprisingly, the U.N.’s misnamed “International Court of Justice”) and virtually all member States that Israel’s capture of Gaza from Egypt in June 1967 resulted in an Occupation (rather than a Reacquisition) according to international law, and (b) the insistence by the U.N. system (including, unsurprisingly, the “International Court of Justice”) and most member States that Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 (after its earlier withdrawal from 80% thereof in May 1994) did not alter that falsely-premised status, based upon the following three allegations:

(1) Israel continued to control Gaza’s land borders after August 2005; and

(2) Israel retained the ability to violate and dominate Gaza’s airspace after August 2005; and

(3) Israel maintained a maritime blockade of Gaza’s coastline after June 2007 (when Hamas overthrew the P.L.O. government in Gaza).

With respect to the first allegation, international law does not view the control by a State over its own borders as an indicum of that State’s occupation of territory beyond those borders.

So, while Israel did continue to control its side of the Israel proper-Gaza administrative border, including the two land crossings (which are known as the “Erez land crossing” and the “Kerem Shalom land crossing”) therein, Gaza -- except during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which was triggered by the latter’s invasion of Israel proper on October 7, 2023 and by its concomitant perpetration of barbarities there -- similarly controlled its side of the same border and the same land crossings.

Alternatively stated -- except during the foregoing Gaza-Israel war -- Israel and Gaza each controlled its own side of their mutual administrative border.

Moreover, Gaza’s administrative borders were never limited to a border with Israel proper, as Gaza always had an administrative border (which is known as the “Philadelphi Corridor”) with Egypt (although, per Article II of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979, Egypt’s administrative border with Gaza is also Egypt’s international border with Israel), including a land crossing therein (known as the “Rafah land crossing”). From August 2005 to June 2024, Israel did not control that border or that land crossing. On the contrary, that border and that land crossing were controlled exclusively by Gaza and Egypt -- until the exigencies of war forced Israel to take control thereof in June 2024.

So, if Israel was continuously occupying Gaza, even after August 2005, by maintaining control over its side of the Israel proper-Gaza administrative border, then Egypt was also continuously occupying Gaza by maintaining control of its side of the Egypt-Gaza administrative border. However, unsurprisingly, neither the U.N. nor any other international organization nor any State has made -- or will ever make -- such an allegation against Egypt.

Lastly, in order to demonstrate the reductio ad absurdum of the allegation that the control by a State over its side of a border is an indicum of its Occupation of territory on the other side of that border, it could conversely -- albeit absurdly -- be argued that, by previously maintaining control over its side of the administrative borders with Israel proper and with Egypt, Gaza thereby controlled those administrative borders, consequently rendering itself the Occupier of Israel proper and Egypt.

With respect to the second allegation, one State’s ability to violate and dominate another State’s airspace has never been viewed by international law as an indicum that such State thereby occupies that other State. Moreover, while Israel has used its air force to bombard Gaza, Gaza has used its missiles and mortars to bombard Israel. Consequently, each belligerent has demonstrated the historical capability to violate and dominate the skies over the territory of the other belligerent.

With respect to the third allegation, maintaining a maritime blockade of a belligerent’s coastline has never been viewed by international law as an indicum that the blockading State thereby occupies the blockaded State. Rather, it is a military tool permitted by the Laws of War.

One instructive comparative example is the geographical relationship between landlocked Lesotho and South Africa, which completely surrounds the former. According to the skewed logic of anti-Israel polemicists who claim that Israel has continuously occupied Gaza since June 1967, South Africa “occupies” Lesotho, because South Africa “controls” all of Lesotho’s borders by maintaining control over its side of their mutual border, and has an air force capable of violating and dominating Lesotho’s airspace. Yet, does South Africa thereby occupy Lesotho according to international law -- despite the fact that there is no South African military presence in Lesotho and despite the fact that South Africa does not perform any functions of government in Lesotho? Of course not; and no State or international organization has claimed otherwise.

Another instructive comparative example is the wartime relationship between rebel-held areas of Yemen and a military coalition (comprising Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain) led by Saudi Arabia. According to the skewed logic of anti-Israel polemicists who allege that Israel has continuously occupied Gaza since June 1967, Saudi Arabia “occupies” rebel-held portions of Yemen, because Saudi Arabia “controls” Yemen’s land borders by maintaining control over its side of their mutual border (despite the fact that Saudi Arabia does not control the border between Yemen and Oman), the Saudi-led coalition has an air force capable of dominating the skies over rebel-held areas of Yemen, and -- from 2015 to 2023 -- the Saudi-led coalition imposed a maritime blockade of Yemen’s rebel-held port facilities. Yet, does (or did) Saudi Arabia and its military allies thereby occupy rebel-held portions of Yemen according to international law -- despite the fact that there is (and previously was) no Saudi-led military presence in rebel-held portions of Yemen, and despite the fact that the Saudi-led coalition does not (and previously did not) perform any functions of government in rebel-held portions of Yemen? Of course not; and no State or international organization has claimed otherwise.

However, Israel was additionally accused of occupying Gaza, because, without any obligation to do so under the Laws of War, Israel (1) palliated the effect of its maritime blockade by allowing third parties to provide food, medicine and other civilian-use items -- and even potentially-dangerous dual-use items -- to enter hostile Gaza via the Israel-Gaza administrative border, and (2) directly provided hostile Gaza with electricity and water via conduits originating in Israel proper. This undeserved largesse often triggered a claim that, by facilitating third-party aid or by directly providing services to Gaza, Israel continued to maintain “control” over Gaza, which consequently meant that Israel continued to “occupy” Gaza, because Israel retained the unilateral power to terminate such largesse at any time -- and it has actually done so, on a temporary basis, whenever Gaza has begun to bombard Israel with missiles and mortars.

By this bizarre formula, any donor State or charitable organization that provides aid to Gaza thereby “controls” and consequently “occupies” that territory, because that donor retains the unilateral power to terminate such largesse at any time. Yet, the fact that a donor has the power to withhold, provide or terminate its largess to a recipient is not -- and has never been -- an indicum of Occupation of the recipient’s territory according to international law.

For example, Israel (via conduits originating in Israel or in Israel’s exclusive maritime zone) provides approximately 100 million cubic meters per year of water and almost 3 million cubic meters per year of natural gas to Jordan, and more than 6 million cubic meters per year of natural gas to Egypt. In the event of a war by Egypt and/or Jordan against Israel, the latter will almost certainly terminate these supply lines. Does the provision of or ability to terminate these supply lines mean that Israel thereby “controls” and consequently “occupies” either Jordan or Egypt? Of course not! Moreover, nothing prevented Gaza from unilaterally ending this alleged aspect of “Israeli Occupation” by (1) obtaining water and electricity from Egypt and/or (2) developing its own water and electricity production facilities with the billions of dollars in international aid that it has received since August 2005.

In order to further illustrate the absurdity of alleging that Israel has continuously occupied Gaza since June 1967, it is pointed out that if the unique definition of an Occupation that has been employed against Israel -- and only against Israel -- were to be applied to the wartime relationship between Nazi Germany and the U.S.-led military coalition in the final months of the European theater of World War II, then the U.S.-led coalition began “occupying” Germany (by means of controlling its land borders, dominating its skies, and blockading its port facilities) before any coalition soldier actually entered German territory. Unsurprisingly, no historian or legal scholar has ever made -- or will ever make -- this bizarre claim.

However, for all those who reject the very existence of the State of Israel, the claim of an illegal Jewish occupation of “Palestine” applies not only to the post-1967 districts of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza, but extends, as well, to all of pre-1967 Israel (i.e., all of Israel proper, being the territory that became the State of Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines).

As a consequence thereof, all of the Gentile nations -- at the very least -- consistently describe the districts of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza as the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, and the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem as illegal according to international law, thereby manufacturing in favor of the “Palestinian” Arabs an international “legal justification” for their “resistance activities” -- in the form of rocket, mortar, car ramming, shooting, knife and arson attacks -- against Israel’s Jewish population and civilian infrastructure.

However, as the Jewish people's possessory right to the Land of Israel derives solely from God's oft-iterated Gift of the Land to the Jewish people through our Patriarchs -- Abraham (see Genesis 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:7; 15:18-21; and 17:7-8), Isaac (see Genesis 17:18-21; 21:9-13; and 26:1-5), and Jacob (see Genesis 28:13-15; and 35:9-13) -- all as ultimately reiterated to Moses and the Jewish people in the form of a national Commandment, to wit:

“‘See, I have given the Land before you; come and possess the Land that HaShem swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, to give to them and to their offspring after them.’”

(Deuteronomy 1:8),

the concept of international law, as created by the amoral Gentile nations, is a nullity in God's Eyes. Nevertheless, in this time before the Messiah has been revealed, when many “civilized” Jews revere such concepts as international law as much as -- or even more than -- they venerate the Word of God, it is important for Jewry to know that, even according to international law (as well as according to United States domestic law and treaty obligations), implementation of the historical Jewish rights of settlement (i.e., habitation) and self-determination (i.e., statehood) in the biblical Land of Israel is not only permissible, but one of the objects thereof.

More broadly, the Jewish people’s claim to sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel rests upon five pillars, in descending order of importance:

1. God’s recurring Promise of the Land to the Jewish people as memorialized in the Hebrew Bible (such Promise being enunciated and reiterated from circa 1800 BCE to circa 433 BCE)

2. The continuous historical habitation of the Jewish people in the Land (circa 1400 BCE to the present time)

3. In light of the declining birthrate of the Jewish people in the States of the Diaspora, the necessity of continued possession of the Land by the Jewish people for its national self-preservation as a distinct ethnicity (1948 to the present time)

4. The Jewish people’s reacquisition, retention and protection of the Land via its serial exercise of national self-defense (1948 to the present time)

5. International law as expressed via the creation of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (in 1920) and via the enactment of the Mandate’s governing instrument (in 1922)

As will be discussed elsewhere in this Essay, that which the World (including unfortunately many uninformed Jews) incessantly declares to be the Jewish State’s Occupation of “Palestinian territory” is, in reality, the Jewish people’s Reacquisition of historically-Jewish territory, as during the past 3,000 years (from circa 1040 BCE to the present time) the Jewish people have been the only ethnic nation which both populated and established domestic sovereignty in the Land of Israel. In fact, Jewish sovereignty was established four times in the Land, to wit:

the 1^st time being via the creation of the united kingdom of Israel by Saul circa 1040 BCE (with Jerusalem being made the capital city during the reign of Saul’s successor, David);

the 2^nd time being via the creation of the successor kingdom of Judea by Simon Maccabeus, founder of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in 140 BCE (with Jerusalem again being made the capital city);

the 3^rd time being via the resurrection of the independent kingdom of Judea by Antigonus II Mattathias, the final monarch of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in 40 BCE (with Jerusalem again being made the capital city); and

the 4^th time being via the creation of the State of Israel by the Zionist Movement in 1948 (with that portion of Jerusalem -- i.e., the western portion -- then in Israel’s possession again being made the capital city).

Moreover, it can be argued that Jewish sovereignty was actually established six times in the Land if one includes two other periods of rebellion and self-rule (which did not, however, result in the complete ejection of foreign occupation forces from the Land), to wit:

the “Great Revolt” against the Roman Empire (also known as the “First Jewish-Roman War”) commencing in 66 CE under the rule of a coalition government (with Jerusalem again being made the capital city); and

the “bar Kokhba Revolt” against the Roman Empire (also known as the “Third Jewish-Roman War”) commencing in 132 CE under the rule of Simon ben Kosiba who adopted the honorific name Simon bar Kokhba (with Jerusalem again being made the capital city).

Moreover, it is a historical, legal and moral absurdity that, in the institutional view of the international community, the brief 19-year absence of Jewish habitation in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (due to Jordan’s massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish population therefrom in 1948 and its subsequent maintenance of a Judenrein Occupation thereof until 1967) has rendered the prior 3,300 years (from circa 1400 BCE to 1948) of Jewish habitation thereof irrelevant.

Alternatively expressed in the form of a question: Why does the World absurdly insist that 19 years (from 1948 to 1967) of Jordanian Occupation of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem have supplanted more than 3,300 years (from circa 1400 BCE to 1948) of Jewish habitation therein, thereby converting the post-1967 Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem from being indigenous inhabitants returning to their ancestral Land into being foreign settlers colonizing an alien Land?

If the response is that the more recent time period of habitation (i.e., modern Jordanian habitation) prevails over the less recent time period of habitation (i.e., ancient Jewish habitation), then why doesn’t the World view the more recent (and greater) time period of modern Jewish habitation in the “West Bank” (from 1967 to the present time) as having supplanted the less recent (and lesser) time period of modern Jordanian habitation thereof (from 1948 to 1967)?

Alternatively expressed, and taking into account that much of the World also rejects the legitimacy of Jewish habitation in any portion of the Land of Israel (i.e., even with respect to Israel proper), why does much of the World regard such habitation as being either too ancient or too recent to render the Jewish people as the Land’s indigenous inhabitants? The answer is that the World’s endemic hostility to the existence and legitimacy of Jewish habitation in (as well as rule over) the Land of Israel inheres in an international geopolitical system that chooses to ignore History, Morality, and International Law whenever it addresses the Jewish people’s sovereign claim to the Land.

Consequently, the World’s claim of an “Occupation” of “Palestine” by the Jewish State constitutes a historical myth created to obfuscate the historical truth that exclusive sovereignty over the Land of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (including the Old City of Jerusalem, together with its Temple Mount and Western Wall) belongs to the Jewish people -- and only to the Jewish people -- acting through its national representative, namely, the State of Israel.

The World makes the concomitant claim that Israel occupies, not only the Land, but also the stateless “Palestinian people” who reside therein. As an essential component of the War against Israel is predicated upon the use of inaccurate nomenclature, it is important to note that even if territory is occupied as a result of war, the victor thereof does not thereby occupy that territory’s defeated population. Rather, the victor governs that defeated population. However, even if Israel’s present possession of the “West Bank” (and former possession of Gaza) constitutes a Reacquisition rather than an Occupation, and even if Israel governs rather than occupies the hostile population thereof, didn’t Israel’s reacquisition of the “West Bank” render the “Palestinian” Arab population thereof stateless? Furthermore, doesn’t Israel thereby govern approximately 5,000,000 stateless “Palestinian” Arabs? Moreover, doesn’t Israel’s rule over a “Palestinian” population that is denied Israeli citizenship and national voting rights render Israel an Apartheid State?

Well, no, no and no.

Firstly, it is pointed out that Egypt and Jordan are the culprits which rendered the “Palestinian” Arabs stateless. This is because (a) Egypt never accorded citizenship to the “Palestinians” of Gaza from 1948 (when Egypt illegally occupied Gaza) until 1967 (when Israel reacquired Gaza on behalf of the Jewish people) and (b) although the “Palestinians” of the “West Bank” were accorded citizenship by Transjordan in 1948 (when Transjordan illegally occupied the “West Bank”), Jordan (known as Transjordan until 1949) revoked their citizenship in 1988 (when Jordan renounced its unlawful claim to the “West Bank”).

Secondly, let us discuss the number of stateless “Palestinians” who are presently subject to Israeli rule. If one subtracts from the foregoing 5,000,000 figure the populations of (a) Gaza, which is presently an independent political entity governed by the genocidal terrorist organization Hamas, and (b) Areas A & B of the “West Bank”, which are presently governed by the equally genocidal terrorist organization known as the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the “Palestinian Authority”, then what remains subject to Israeli rule is the Arab population of Area C of the “West Bank”, which presently hosts approximately 60,000 hostile, irredentist, and revanchist “Palestinian” Arabs. Although the United Nations, through the report of its “Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs -- Occupied Palestinian Territory”, entitled “In the Spotlight: Area C Vulnerability Profile”, issued on March 5, 2014, claimed that the “Palestinian” population of Area C was almost 300,000 in 2013, that report erroneously and intentionally included Arabs residing in Area A, Area B and Jerusalem as residents of Area C (see page 2 of the report), thereby greatly inflating the Arab population of Area C of the “West Bank” in order dissuade the State of Israel from applying its de jure sovereignty thereto. Consequently, as Israel presently governs only 60,000 Arabs in the Reacquired Jewish Territories of Judea & Samaria, 98% of the Arabs residing therein (and 100% of the Arabs residing in Gaza) are governed by their fellow Arabs, meaning that only 2% of the Arabs of Judea & Samaria are governed by Israel. Moreover, even if the “Occupation” provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, as further discussed elsewhere in this Essay, did apply to Israel’s initial reacquisition of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1967, those provisions immediately ceased applying to areas no longer governed by Israel, as the Convention states that an Occupation exists only with respect to areas over which the Occupier “exercises the functions of government” (Convention, Part I, Article 6); and Israel does not exercise any governmental functions in Palestinian Authority-ruled Areas A & B of Judea & Samaria or in Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Thirdly, assuming that Israel was to apply its de jure sovereignty to Area C of Judea & Samaria (by replacing its military rule therein with its civilian rule therein), let us discuss whether the denial of Israeli citizenship and national voting rights to the 60,000 hostile, irredentist, and revanchist “Palestinians” thereof would render Israel an Apartheid State.

Assuming the extension of de jure Israeli sovereignty to Area C, and assuming the denial of national citizenship and national voting rights to the Arabs thereof, the legal status of the resident Arab population of Area C would be identical to the present legal status of the resident population of American Samoa (formally known as the “Territory of American Samoa”, being the eastern portion of the Samoan archipelago, located in the South Pacific Ocean, which archipelago Germany and the United States divided between themselves in 1899). Even though American Samoa is part of the United States (and is governed at the national level by the Office of Insular Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior), its residents, although having been born in the United States, do not thereby acquire U.S. citizenship, consequently rendering them noncitizen legal U.S. residents, who must apply for U.S. citizenship as if they were born in a foreign country. In addition to the noncitizen legal U.S. residents of American Samoa, there are more than 30 million noncitizen illegal U.S. residents who live throughout the United States, many of whom have done so for many decades. Both of these categories of U.S. residents are denied the right to vote in national parliamentary elections due to their lack of U.S. citizenship.

Furthermore, millions of U.S. citizens are also denied the right to vote in national parliamentary elections due to their particular places of residency within the United States, such as: (a) those U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. capital city Washington, D.C. (also known as the District of Columbia), (b) those U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico (formally known as the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico”, located in the Caribbean Sea, which was seized by the United States from Spain during the Spanish-American War of 1898), (c) those U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. territory of Guam (being the southernmost island of the Mariana Islands archipelago, located in the North Pacific Ocean, which was seized by the United States from Spain during the Spanish-American War of 1898), and (d) those U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. Virgin Islands (formally known as the “Virgin Islands of the United States”, located in the Caribbean Sea, which was purchased by the United States from Denmark in 1917).

Moreover, it is the same with Britain. Britain has 14 colonies, officially known as the “British Overseas Territories”, whose residents: (1) are denied British citizenship (e.g., the residents of the “Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia”, both of which are located on the southern coast of Cyprus), or (2) despite being British citizens, are denied national parliamentary voting rights (e.g., the residents Gibraltar, located on the southern coast of Spain).

Yet, for good reason, neither the United States nor Britain has ever been labeled an Apartheid State by the international community for hosting many millions of residents who are denied national citizenship and/or national voting rights. This is because, although the denial of national citizenship and/or national voting rights to portions of a country’s population may have been a feature of the historical discriminatory system known as “Apartheid” (Afrikaans-language meaning: “Apartness” or “Separateness”), it was never its essential feature. Instead, the essence of historical Apartheid, as practiced in the State that invented this system (i.e., South Africa), is government-mandated-and-enforced separation between racial subsets of a country’s population in all aspects of life (e.g., separate legislatures, separate housing complexes, separate restaurants, separate entertainment venues, separate educational systems, separate public facilities, etc.) in order to implement the racial supremacist beliefs of that country’s government. Consequently, whatever one thinks of the denials by the U.S. and Britain of national citizenship and/or national voting rights to portions of their respective populations, such denials do not render either the U.S. or Britain -- neither of which mandates or enforces racial separation -- an Apartheid State.

Nor would it render Israel an Apartheid State. This is so, because -- like the U.S. and Britain -- Israel neither mandates nor enforces separation between any of its racial (or ethnic) populations. For this reason, Israel is an integrationist State.

Israel’s integrationist policies apply whether members of the Israeli-governed population reside in Israel proper or in Israeli-governed Area C of the “West Bank”, and whether members of the Israeli-governed population are citizens or noncitizens. In fact, Israel’s Gentile citizens (including Arabs), together with its Jewish citizens, vote in Israel’s national parliamentary elections; and they serve in Israel’s national parliament, professions (including the medical profession), diplomatic corps, police units, military units, and court system (including its Supreme Court). Moreover, in Israeli-governed Area C of the “West Bank”, Jews and Gentiles (including Arabs) freely mix in public areas, in supermarkets, in restaurants, and in industrial parks that employ people without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion. Furthermore, Jews and Gentiles (including Arabs) -- whether or not they are citizens of Israel -- can and do attend the Israeli-chartered Ariel University, located in the Jewish city of Ariel in Samaria. Such integrationist activity constitutes the antithesis of historical Apartheid.

Moreover, even if Israel were to mandate and enforce physical separation between citizens and noncitizens -- which it does not -- “CERD” (formally entitled the “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”, adopted by U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 2106 (XX) of December 21, 1965) has essentially declared that State-imposed distinctions between citizens and noncitizens do not constitute “racial discrimination”, to wit:

2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.

(CERD, Part I, Article 1, paragraph 2).

CERD defines “racial discrimination” as follows:

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

(CERD, Part I, Article 1, paragraph 1)

As such citizen-noncitizen distinctions do not render the imposing State guilty of “racial discrimination”, such distinctions cannot legally or logically render the imposing State guilty of historical Apartheid, the essence of which is racial discrimination (through the government-mandated-and-enforced mechanism of racial separation).

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that these longtime denials by the U.S. and Britain of national citizenship and/or national voting rights target residents who have never engaged in war or terrorism against those respective States. Consequently, if a State -- like the U.S. or Britain -- can deny national citizenship and/or national voting rights to a significant portion of its residents based upon their birth location, residency location, or immigration status (none of which implicate an existential threat to that State), without rendering that State an Apartheid State, then a State -- like Israel -- can also deny national citizenship and/or national voting rights to a significant portion of its residents based upon an existential threat assessment without rendering that State an Apartheid State.

In light of the foregoing, the denial by Israel of national citizenship and/or national voting rights to the hostile, irredentist, and revanchist Arab population of the “West Bank” or any portion thereof (in the event of its formal incorporation into the State of Israel) would be well justified -- especially as 82% of its Arab population supported the Hamas-led invasion of Israel proper and the concomitant terrorist atrocities of October 7, 2023 (per the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s Public Opinion Poll no. 90, published December 13, 2023, at section (1) (entitled “October the 7th and the War in Gaza”, subsection 1 (entitled “Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive”), paragraph 2). It is noteworthy that neither international law nor Morality requires the Jewish State to grant national citizenship and/or national voting rights to a population that aspires to destroy it -- whether by means of War, Demography, or a combination thereof. Moreover, it bears reiterating that such denials of national citizenship and/or national voting rights, which are never claimed to have converted the U.S. and Britain into Apartheid States, would also not convert Israel into an Apartheid State.

Nonetheless, in an attempt to shame Israel into choosing the form of its destruction, anti-Israel polemicists and (in the guise of expressing alleged concern over the Jewish State’s collective soul) many self-described allies of Israel insist that in order to avoid becoming an Apartheid State, Israel must choose between two deleterious options:

(1) permitting the creation of a 22^nd Arab State in Gaza and the “West Bank” that will be relentlessly hostile to the continued existence of the Jewish State; or

(2) providing Israeli citizenship to every Arab resident of Gaza and the “West Bank” without regard to such prospective citizen’s level of hostility towards the Jewish State.

However, for the reasons discussed above, rejecting both of these catastrophic options will not convert Israel into an Apartheid State.

Yet, in Israel proper as well as in the “West Bank”, there are some towns in which all of the residents are Jews and other towns in which all of the residents are Arabs. Doesn’t the existence of Jewish-only towns and Arab-only towns prove the existence of Israeli-mandated Apartheid? Well, no. Israel did not mandate this arrangement. Rather, the residents of these monoethnic towns themselves chose where they wanted to reside. Furthermore, there are also towns populated by both Jews and Arabs (e.g., Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Beersheba, Lod, Ramla, Acre, Carmiel, Nof HaGalil (formerly known as Upper Nazareth), and Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam). Again, the residents of these polyethnic towns themselves chose where they wanted to reside. It is axiomatic that this freedom of choice is the antithesis of Apartheid.

Moreover, the existence of

(1) Jewish neighborhoods in the Arab-dominated eastern portions of Jerusalem and Hebron (e.g., the Jewish neighborhoods of the Old City’s Jewish Quarter, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Shlomo, Ramat Eshkol, Neve Yaakov, Pisgat Ze’ev, Har Homa, and Ramot in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; and the neighborhoods of Admot Yishai, Avraham Avinu, Beit Romano, Tel Rumeida, and Beit Hadassah in the eastern portion of Hebron),

(2) Jewish families residing in Arab neighborhoods thereof (e.g., the Arab neighborhoods of Silwan and the Old City’s Muslim Quarter in the eastern portion of Jerusalem), and

(3) Arab families residing in Jewish neighborhoods thereof (e.g., the Jewish neighborhoods of French Hill, Pisgat Ze'ev, and Neve Yaacov in the eastern portion of Jerusalem)

have transformed these formerly monoethnic areas into polyethnic areas. Yet, hypocritically, the international community does not view the existence of Jewish habitation within Arab-dominated areas of the “West Bank” as a bulwark against Apartheid. Instead, the existence of such Jewish habitation has triggered a demand from the international community that such Jewish residents be expelled in order to render or restore the 1948 - 1967 demographic status of these residential areas as being exclusively Arab.

However, the Arab communities presently ruled by the Palestinian Authority in Areas A & B of Judea & Samaria are interspersed with portions of Israeli-ruled Area C of Judea & Samaria (which hosts all Jewish communities and some of the Arab communities of Judea & Samaria), thereby rendering the P.A.-ruled territory discontiguous. As Apartheid-era South Africa mandated the creation of discontiguous autonomous tribal areas, doesn’t the non-contiguity of P.A.-ruled territory prove the existence of Israeli-mandated Apartheid? Well, no.

Firstly, neither the autonomous status of the P.A. nor the areas ruled by the P.A. were imposed upon the P.A. by Israel. Rather, they were the product of negotiations between Israel and the P.L.O. from 1993 - 1998 that resulted in the “Oslo Accords” (which, inter alia, created the P.A. as an instrumentality of the P.L.O.) and related agreements, as further discussed elsewhere in this Essay.

Secondly, discontiguous territory is not a hallmark of Apartheid. Many States -- none of which have ever been identified as being victims of Apartheid -- comprise and govern discontiguous territory (e.g., the United States, France, Netherlands, Britain, Indonesia, Greece, Philippines, Russia, Denmark, Japan, Azerbaijan, Oman, etc.).

Thirdly, the very same intermeshing of Areas A & B with Area C that have created non-contiguity for P.A.-ruled territory in Judea & Samaria has also created non-contiguity for Israeli-ruled territory in Judea & Samaria; but this circumstance has never led any elements of the international community to claim that the non-contiguity of Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria renders Jewish residents thereof as victims of Apartheid.

Moreover, if Israel ever decides to cede a portion of Judea & Samaria to the P.L.O. qua the P.A. for the purpose of creating a “State of Palestine” therein, this non-contiguity issue is solvable by creating a system of dedicated bridges, roads, and tunnels, which would create functionally-contiguous territory for both the P.L.O.-ruled “State of Palestine” and for Israeli-ruled Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria.

Yet, even if Israel were to expel every Jew from Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (as it previously did from Gaza in 2005), and even if Hamas were to abdicate its rule over Gaza in order to allow the creation of a P.L.O.-ruled “State of Palestine” comprising 100% of the “West Bank” and Gaza, this 22^nd Arab State would nonetheless remain discontiguous due to the fact that a large expanse of Israel (i.e., 112 kilometers, which equals approximately 70 miles) would still separate Gaza from the “West Bank”. So, per the absurd claim that a discontiguous State is, by definition, a victim of Apartheid, even a Judenrein “State of Palestine” comprising 100% of the “West Bank” and Gaza would still be deemed to be a victim of Israeli-mandated Apartheid by those seeking to demonize and thereby delegitimize the Jewish State.

The demand that the territory comprising a “State of Palestine” must be contiguous has been adopted by the international community, as all components thereof (including the United States under virtually all Presidents since the Oslo Accords) have demanded that Israel create such contiguity by ceding to that 22^nd Arab State an inviolable land corridor across Israeli territory in order to connect Gaza and the “West Bank”.

In the foregoing context, it is instructive to recall that when Britain created Pakistan by carving it from the territory of India in 1947, Pakistan’s territory was discontiguous, as it comprised two areas separated by a vast expanse of northern India, denominated as the province of West Pakistan and the province of East Pakistan. This territorial non-contiguity existed until 1971, when the province of East Pakistan (aided by India) violently seceded from Pakistan, thereby resulting in the creation of two States -- Pakistan (being the former province of West Pakistan) and Bangladesh (being the former province of East Pakistan). At no time from 1947 to 1971, did this territorial non-contiguity cause any component of the international community to identify Pakistan (or any portion thereof) as a victim of Indian-created Apartheid. Significantly, at no time during this same period did there exist any inviolable land corridor through India to connect the Pakistani province of West Pakistan with the Pakistani province of East Pakistan. Nor, at any time during this same period, did any component of the international community (other than Pakistan) demand that India must cede territory to Pakistan in order to create such a corridor.

Moreover, Azerbaijan is also discontiguous, as its compromises two areas separated by a large expanse of southern Armenia -- namely, Azerbaijan proper in the East and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in the West. At no time has this territorial non-contiguity caused any component of the international community to identify Azerbaijan (or any portion thereof) as a victim of Armenian-created Apartheid. Significantly, there is no inviolable land corridor through Armenia to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic with Azerbaijan proper. Nor has any component of the international community (other than Azerbaijan) demanded that Armenia must cede territory to Azerbaijan in order to create such a corridor.

In fact, with respect to none of these discontiguous States has any component of the international community ever demanded that adjacent States cede territory to such discontiguous States to erase such non-contiguities. This is because such inviolable land corridors would permanently bisect such adjacent States, thereby undermining their respective territorial integrities. Consequently, the international community has not demanded such an enormous territorial concession of any adjacent State in favor of any discontiguous State -- except in the case of Israel. So, why does the international community insist that Israel must create an inviolable land corridor through its territory to connect Gaza and the “West Bank”? The answer is that (1) as such a corridor will permanently bisect Israel, it will undermine Israel’s territorial integrity, and thereby strengthen those States and terrorist militias who seek to annihilate the Jewish State, and (2) much of the remainder of the World, infected by Antisemitism, supports this ultimate objective.

It is pertinent to point out that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes a “Crime of Apartheid” in its enumeration of “Crimes Against Humanity” (see Rome Statue, Part 2, Article 7, paragraph 1(j)). The Rome Statute defines the “Crime of Apartheid” as follows:

(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

(Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Part 2, Article 7, paragraph 2(h))

It is noteworthy that the essence of historical Apartheid (which is racial discrimination through the government-mandated-and-enforced mechanism of racial separation) is absent from the foregoing treaty-based definition of Apartheid. Consequently, based upon this new definition of Apartheid, any State in which one racial group uses the mechanisms of government to oppress another racial group is guilty of Apartheid, even if that State’s populace is fully-integrated. Alternatively stated, according to the Rome Statute, Apartheid can exist without Apartheid ! This new definition of Apartheid allows not only the International Criminal Court, but any component of the U.N. system (i.e., the U.N. Secretariat, the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N.’s specialized agencies and the U.N.’s affiliated organizations), to assign that label, constituting the most pejorative international label in existence, to any State -- even a democratic and integrationist State (e.g., Israel) -- that the U.N. system seeks to demonize and delegitimize as an “Oppressor”.

Yet, even this new definition of Apartheid has retained the historical requirement that alleged governmental discrimination between subsets of a State’s population be based upon race (i.e., skin pigmentation). Consequently, the Apartheid label cannot legally or logically be assigned to Israel, as both Jews and Arabs are multi-colored ethnicities, ranging from pale white to coal black. Alternatively stated, the Jewish people and the Arab people do not constitute different races.

However, even if every Jew in the Land of Israel were pale white, and even if every Arab in the Land of Israel were coal black, thereby establishing the greatest possible racial divide between resident Jews and resident Arabs, there would still be no instances of discrimination in the Land of Israel mandated and enforced by the Israeli government based upon skin pigmentation.

Lastly, if the State of Israel -- despite not mandating racial (or ethnic) separation, and despite ensuring equal civil rights and religious rights to every citizen regardless of skin pigmentation (or ethnicity) -- is nonetheless an Apartheid State pursuant to the new definition of Apartheid, because, as the nation-state of the Jewish people -- and only of the Jewish people -- it allegedly oppresses its minority populations by promoting national policies favorable to its Jewish majority, then every ethnic State in the World which promotes policies favorable to its ethnic majority is also an Apartheid State. For example, Israel’s “Law of Return” implements Articles 6 & 7 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, to wit:

ARTICLE 6 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the Land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ARTICLE 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

as well as Paragraph 12 of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, to wit:

“The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles …”

by granting -- with limited exceptions (e.g., a fugitive fleeing arrest or a convicted felon) -- automatic residency and citizenship to any Jew (together with the latter’s spouse and children) in the World, while a Gentile (who is not married to a Jew) is required to request residency rights and citizenship via Israel’s more restrictive “Law of Entry”.

Yet, an ethnocentric law such as Israel’s “Law of Return” is hardly unique, as numerous other States (including such liberal democracies as Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, and Germany) have enacted similar legislation implementing the principle of ethnic repatriation based upon the longstanding Latin-language legal doctrine known as “Jus Sanguinis” (meaning: “Right of Blood”). Moreover, it is noteworthy that these Jus Sanguinis laws, including Israel’s “Law of Return”, do not discriminate between a State’s ethnic-majority citizens and its ethnic-minority citizens, but rather between classes of noncitizens who seek to immigrate to that State. However, of all the States in the World that legislatively promote national policies favorable to their respective ethnic majorities, only Israel has been routinely defamed as an Apartheid State on account of such policies.

Ironically, Israel could be credibly accused of employing “legislative Apartheid” due to its military conscription law, which does discriminate between its Jewish citizens and Arab citizens by granting to its Arab citizens a collective exemption from compulsory military service. This discriminatory law not only exonerates Israel’s Arab citizens from being required to risk their lives -- as its Jewish citizens must do -- in order to defend the State of Israel against its plethora of genocidal enemies, but this law also permits its Arab citizens to begin university studies and/or to enter the workforce at least three years before its same-aged Jewish citizens are legally able to do so (because the latter are performing fulltime service in the Israeli military during that time period), thereby providing its Arab citizens with a significant financial advantage over its Jewish citizens. However, due to the fact that Israel’s military conscription law discriminates in favor of its Arab citizens, Israel has never been labeled as an “Apartheid State” on account of that policy.

Moreover, none of many minority-ruled totalitarian States in the World that concentrate power and privilege in their respective ruling classes (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Syria, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, etc.), and by that mechanism oppress their respective populations, has ever been labeled by any component of the international community as an Apartheid State on account thereof. That is probably for two reasons:

(1) The ruling classes’ oppression of their respective populations is not racially based; and

(2) These States are not populated and governed by Jews.

Instead, that pejorative label (whether fallaciously based upon the historical definition of Apartheid, the new treaty-based definition of Apartheid or a combination thereof) has been hypocritically and unjustly reserved for only one State in the World -- namely, the democratic, majority-ruled, and integrationist State of Israel.

In conclusion, labeling Israel as an Apartheid State not only trivializes the horrors experienced by the black and brown peoples of Apartheid-era South Africa, but it also drains that pejorative label of any authentic meaning. Consequently, the Jewish State need not -- and should not -- adopt suicidal policies in a futile effort to avoid that pejorative label -- as neither international law nor democracy is a suicide pact.

At the outset, it is essential to understand that international law -- unlike the Torah -- does not descend from Heaven.

Neither is international law the product of legislation enacted by a world government via a world legislature -- as such entities do not exist. Although the United Nations, acting through the U.N. Security Council, can issue theoretically-binding resolutions pursuant to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, any proposed resolution can be vetoed by any one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (i.e., United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France), and the implementation of an issued resolution relies entirely upon voluntary compliance therewith by a critical mass of U.N. member States. Alternatively stated, the United Nations is neither a world government nor a world legislature. Rather, the U.N. is a consensual organization -- unfortunately infested with extreme bias against the Jewish State -- that collects annual dues from each of its member States and acts in accordance with the preponderance of the self-perceived national interests of each of those States, with the veto-wielding permanent U.N.S.C. member States having greater influence over its deliberations than its non-veto-wielding temporary U.N.S.C. member States, and with the latter having greater influence over its deliberations than non-U.N.S.C. member States. Moreover, notwithstanding the foregoing, any member State has the sovereign right to withdraw from the U.N., and to thereby cease paying dues thereto.

So, what is “international law, and to what extent does it bind sovereign States?

The term “international law” is a misnomer, as -- there being no world government and no world legislature -- such international legislation does not exist. Rather, what is labeled as “international law” is something else entirely, namely, an instrumentality of multi-party contract formation, denominated as international treaties, whereby each signatory State agrees to take actions and/or refrain from taking actions, all of which limit its sovereign freedom of action by requiring it to adhere to the norms set forth in each treaty, provided that all other signatory States do the same.

Beginning in late 1917 and ending in late 1918 -- towards the end of World War I -- Britain (formally known as the United Kingdom) captured from the Ottoman Empire (which was based in present-day Turkiye, formerly known as Turkey) all the non-sovereign lands comprising the region of Palestine. At the time of the British conquest, the region of Palestine did not exist as a distinct territorial unit within the Ottoman Empire. Rather, its lands were divided among several Ottoman districts. The battlefield successes of Britain’s 38^th, 39^th and 40^th Battalions of Royal Fusiliers, comprising Jewish volunteers from many States (e.g., Britain, the United States, Canada, and Argentina), and collectively known as the “Jewish Legion”, as well as the surveillance activities of the resident Jewish espionage organization known as NILI, were integral to Britain’s victory over the Ottoman Empire in the western portion of Palestine (i.e., that portion of the region of Palestine situated between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, which is present-day Israel proper, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza). Although Arab forces also aided Britain’s conquest of the region of Palestine (under the guidance of British army officer Thomas Lawrence, commonly known as “Lawrence of Arabia”), their assistance was limited to the eastern portion of Palestine (i.e., the portion of the region of Palestine situated east of the Jordan River, which subsequently became Transjordan, which is present-day Jordan).

At the time of the British conquest, although Jews constituted only 11% of the population of western Palestine, they constituted a majority of the population of Jerusalem.

Specifically, per Table III (entitled “Population of Municipal Areas”) of “Palestine: Report And General Abstracts Of The Census of 1922” at page 6 thereof, which census was the first census of Mandatory Palestine commissioned by Britain, and was published on October 23, 1922, there were a total of 62,578 residents of Jerusalem, of whom:

54.29% (33,971 residents) were Jews,

23.49% (14,699 residents) were Christians (both Arabs and non-Arabs),

21.43% (13,413 residents) were Muslims (both Arabs and non-Arabs),

0.77% (484 residents) were Hindus, less than .01% (6 residents) were Druze, and

less than 0.01% (5 residents) were Sikhs.

Even assuming -- improbably -- that all Christian and Muslim residents of Jerusalem at the time of this census were Arabs, the latter still constituted less than half of the population thereof, while Jews constituted a majority thereof. Moreover, the Jewish majority in Jerusalem was continuously maintained thereafter until the illegal Transjordanian occupation of the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1948, when the Jewish population thereof was reduced to zero via massacre and expulsion -- until the return of the Jewish population thereof in 1967 as a result of Israel’s reacquisition of that portion of the City that year.

From April 19, 1920 to April 26, 1920, an international conference was held at San Remo, Italy to implement the terms of the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 which was the first of five peace treaties that formally terminated the hostilities then known as the “Great War” (subsequently denominated as “World War I”). Articles 1 - 26 of the Treaty were denominated as the “Covenant of the League of Nations”. These provisions not only established the League of Nations (which was the predecessor to the United Nations), but they also authorized, under the League’s supervision, the creation of international Mandates for the governance of the World's remaining non-sovereign territories and their respective populations.

The legal basis for the mandatory system was the international community’s declaration that providing for the “well-being and development” of the World’s non-sovereign populations constituted “a sacred trust of civilisation” (Covenant of League of Nations, Article 22, Paragraph 1), and that the League of Nations’ “best method” of effecting this global task was to create a “tutelage” relationship between certain “advanced nations” and “such peoples” whereby the former would serve “as Mandatories on behalf of the League” (Covenant of League of Nations, Article 22, Paragraph 2). In legal terminology, each mandate constituted a separate Trust, of which the League of Nations was the Settlor, the appointed Mandatory was the Trustee, the resident population (or chosen subset thereof) was the Beneficiary, and the administered territory was the Corpus.  Under Trust law, the Trustee is obligated to administer the Trust Corpus on behalf of and for the sole benefit of the Trust Beneficiary in compliance with the Trust’s governing instrument; and when the Trust terminates, the Trust Beneficiary thereby becomes the legal owner of the Trust Corpus. Applied to the mandatory system, this means that, when a mandate terminated, the resident population (or chosen subset thereof) thereby became sovereign over the administered territory thereof.

A primary objective of the mandatory system was to return those non-sovereign territories formerly occupied by the Ottoman Empire and its wartime allies to their respective indigenous populations, including the Jewish people (see Covenant of League of Nations, Article 22, Paragraph 4).

With respect to the Jewish people’s indigeneity to the Land of Israel, it is noteworthy that although there were other peoples living in the Land of Israel before the patriarch Abraham migrated there from Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) circa 1800 BCE, all of those pre-Abrahamic peoples disappeared as identifiable ethnicities thousands of years ago, thereby rendering the Jewish people as the oldest surviving identifiable ethnicity which has ever inhabited the Land of Israel.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (of the Treaty of Versailles) states, in full, as follows:

ARTICLE 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern World, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic, and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

At the San Remo conference, pursuant to the authority of Article 22, Paragraph 4 of its Covenant, the League of Nations -- by a unanimous vote -- assigned to France, as Mandatory trustee, the non-sovereign territory of “Syria and the Lebanon”, and to Britain, as Mandatory trustee, the non-sovereign territory of “Mesopotamia” and the non-sovereign territory of “Palestine”. These three mandates were denominated as Class A mandates, meaning that -- pursuant to Article 22, Paragraph 4 of the Covenant -- all of the former Turkish-occupied territories to be governed thereunder, including Mandatory Palestine, were deemed by the League of Nations to be ready for independence after respective periods of tutelage under their appointed Mandatories.

The internationally-authorized Trust for the non-sovereign territory of Palestine, known as the Mandate for Palestine, was created by the League of Nations on April 24, 1920. However, the Trust’s internationally-authorized governing instrument, also known as the Mandate for Palestine, was not finalized and enacted by the League of Nations until July 24, 1922.

Although not a member of the League of Nations, the United States (at the direction of President Warren Harding) proclaimed its support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Mandatory Palestine via the passage of a joint resolution of Congress on June 30, 1922, subsequently signed into U.S. law by the President on September 21, 1922 (as Public Law no. 67-73, entitled “Joint Resolution: Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, commonly known as the “Lodge-Fish Resolution”), which states, in full, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

In the context of Arab opposition to the Mandate for Palestine, in a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on June 30, 1922, New York congressman Walter Chandler, one of the Joint Resolution’s co-sponsors, presciently sent the following message to the hostile Arab leadership of Mandatory Palestine (as published in the Congressional Record for June 30, 1922, Volume 62, Part 10, page 9810):

“I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:

(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.

(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east [i.e., Mandatory Syria and/or Mandatory Mesopotamia].

(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.”

Subsequently, as it was not a member of the League of Nations, the United States (at the direction of President Calvin Coolidge) separately ratified the creation of the Mandate for Palestine and the provisions of its governing instrument by entering into the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (formally entitled the “Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to rights in Palestine. Signed at London, December 3, 1924”).

Prior to its conquest by Britain during World War I, the non-sovereign region of Palestine had been occupied, with brief interruptions, by the Ottoman Empire since 1517 and, before that, by an unbroken chain of colonialist empires stretching back in History to imperial Rome (and, before the Roman Occupation, to the Greek, Persian, Babylonian and Assyrian Occupations of all or parts of the Land of Israel). The Roman Empire, after having crushed the fourth and final revolt of the Jewish people against its hated Occupation in 135, changed the Land's name from Judea (the Latin-language word for which was Iudaea, meaning Land of the Jews) to Palestine (the Latin-language word for which was Palaestina, meaning Land of the Philistines -- an Aegean people who had migrated to the Land of Israel in Antiquity and had subsequently become a fierce enemy of the Jewish people, but who had disappeared from History due to their extirpation by the Babylonian Empire more than 700 years prior to the renaming of the Land), as part of an unabashed effort to humiliate the defeated Jewish people and to delegitimize any further Jewish national claim to the Land. Although, as further punishment for the uprising, the Romans also massacred and expelled much of the Land's Jewish population, the remainder thereof continued to reside throughout the Land (including the areas of trans-Jordania, Galilee, Negev, Arava, Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Golan Heights) under the Roman and all successive Occupations -- including that of the colonialist Islamic Arab Empire commencing in the 7^th Century -- through the advent of the Mandate for Palestine.

In this context, it is noteworthy that the Land of Israel was home to the Jewish people for more than 2,000 years before the Islamic Arab invasion of the Land (i.e., from circa 1400 BCE to 638 CE). Alternatively stated, the Jewish people were residing in the Land of Israel for more than 2,000 years before the first Arab conqueror arrived in the Land.

The Mandate for Palestine (i.e., the Trust) was created for the explicit purpose of reestablishing a Jewish National Home (and for the implicit purpose of creating a sovereign Jewish State) in the biblical Land of Israel (notwithstanding the fact that the borders of Mandatory Palestine and the borders of the biblical Land of Israel were, in some places, not identical). The Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine (i.e., the Trust’s governing instrument) states as its goal “... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country ...” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 2); and the Preamble thereof further declares that “... recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 3). The League of Nations thereby acknowledged that, although having been widely dispersed amongst the nations of the World during the past several millennia, the Jewish people (comprising, in part, those Jewish inhabitants of the Land whose families (1) had managed to remain in the Land since the biblical era, (2) had more recently returned to the Land, and (3) would in the future return to the Land) were nonetheless the indigenous inhabitants of the Land pursuant to History as well as international law.

Conversely, the Arab and other Gentile peoples then resident in the Land were not indigenous to the Land, as they existed in the Land by virtue of their ancestors’ (1) past conquests of the Land (e.g., those inhabitants whose ancestors entered the Land as part of the colonialist Arab invasion of 638 CE, which dislodged the Byzantine Empire -- originally known as the “Eastern Roman Empire” -- therefrom), (2) immigration during the subsequent Ottoman Occupation (e.g., Arab, Chechen, Circassian, and Serbian Muslim immigrants presently known as “Bosniaks”), and (3) immigration during the subsequent Mandatory period (e.g., the successive waves of Arab immigrants from nearby countries commencing in 1920).

In agreeing to its appointment as Mandatory trustee of this Trust, Britain did not thereby become the legal sovereign of Mandatory Palestine. Rather, Britain undertook to administer Mandatory Palestine and to govern its resident population in compliance with the provisions of the Trust’s governing instrument and subject to the supervision and control of the Council of the League of Nations (see Covenant of League of Nations, Article 22, Paragraphs 7, 8 & 9; Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraphs 6 & 7; and Mandate for Palestine, Articles 1, 14, 24, 25, 27 & 28).

The Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922 states, in full, as follows:

MANDATE FOR PALESTINE

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

Confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

ARTICLE 1 The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate.

ARTICLE 2 The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ARTICLE 3 The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

ARTICLE 4 An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are, in the opinion of the Mandatory, appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ARTICLE 5 The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

ARTICLE 8 The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.

Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately reestablished in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.

ARTICLE 9 The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.

Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.

ARTICLE 10 Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.

ARTICLE 11 The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connexion with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

ARTICLE 12 The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.

ARTICLE 13 All responsibility in connexion with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

ARTICLE 14 A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connexion with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.

ARTICLE 15 The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ARTICLE 16 The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

ARTICLE 17 The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

ARTICLE 18 The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

ARTICLE 19 The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.

ARTICLE 20 The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.

ARTICLE 21 The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nationals of all States Members of the League of Nations.

(1) “Antiquity” means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year 1700 A. D.

(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat. Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorization referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.

(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity. No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.

(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.

(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.

(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.

(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorizations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.

(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.

ARTICLE 22 English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

ARTICLE 23 The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.

ARTICLE 24 The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.

ARTICLE 25 In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

ARTICLE 26 The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 27 The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

ARTICLE 28 In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.

The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all members of the League.

Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.

Except as set forth in Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine (as further discussed elsewhere in the Essay), although the Arabs residing in Mandatory Palestine were to retain their individual rights therein, specifically their civil and religious rights (see Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 2; and Articles 2, 9, 13, 15, 16 & 23), the Jews of Mandatory Palestine -- whether their residency predated or postdated the creation of the Mandate -- were to be accorded exclusive national rights therein as a measure of restorative justice for the Jewish people (see Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraphs 2 & 3; and Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 11). Although Article 3 does not state which of the several resident populations was to enjoy local autonomy during the existence of the Mandate, that provision’s placement between Articles 2 & 4, taken together with the explicit raison d’être of the Mandate, leads to the conclusion that the resident Jewish population was the intended beneficiary thereof. This embedded distinction between national rights accorded to the (present and future) resident Jewish population of Mandatory Palestine and individual rights accorded to the resident Gentile populations of Mandatory Palestine is epitomized by Paragraph 2 of the Mandate’s Preamble, which specified that “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” should not come at the expense of the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. This preambular provision is particularly crucial because it links the creation of the Jewish National Home in Mandatory Palestine to the protection of the individual rights of Gentiles therein -- but not to the protection of the individual rights of Jews therein. This linkage makes sense only if the Mandate’s purpose was to create an independent State ruled by Jews; for, only in that case would it be necessary to provide for the protection of the individual rights of non-Jews therein and unnecessary to provide for the protection of the individual rights of Jews therein. If the Mandate had intended to also grant national rights to the Arab or other Gentile populations of Mandatory Palestine, then this preambular provision would have been rendered superfluous.

The Mandate granted to the Jewish people two distinct legal rights inherent in the reestablishment of the Jewish National Home, namely, the collective right of settlement (i.e., habitation) and the collective right of self-determination (i.e., statehood). In order to effectuate both of these rights, Article 6 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Administration to encourage immigration and facilitate settlement by Jews (but not Arabs or other Gentiles). Concomitant with the foregoing, Article 7 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Administration to provide for the bestowal of Palestinian citizenship upon immigrating Jews (but not Arabs or other Gentiles). Moreover, Article 4 of the Mandate authorized the creation of a local Jewish government (in the form of the preexisting Zionist Organization co-founded by Theodore Herzl in the 19^th Century, which is presently known as the World Zionist Organization) to assist the Mandatory Administration in the performance of its Mandatory obligations to the Jewish people. In furtherance of the League of Nation’s goal to prepare Mandatory Palestine for eventual independence as a Jewish State, Article 11 of the Mandate authorized the Mandatory Administration to delegate to the local Jewish government the performance of important national governmental functions (namely, the construction and operation of public works, services and utilities, and the development of the Land’s natural resources). Alternatively stated, various provisions of the Mandate explicitly facilitated the creation of a Jewish proto-state during the existence of the Mandate, thereby resulting, upon termination of the Mandate, in the creation of such proto-state’s logical successor, namely, an independent Jewish State.

In emphasis of the Mandate’s grant of exclusive national rights to the Jewish people, the appellation “Arab” does not appear anywhere in the Mandate. Likewise, the appellation “Palestinian” does not appear in the Mandate, except in its reference to “the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 7). In fact, nowhere in the Mandate is there any reference, by name, to any ethnicity other than the Jewish people. Instead, the Mandate subsumes the Arab and other Gentile inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine within the following generic categories: “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 2), “inhabitants of Palestine” (Mandate for Palestine, Articles 2 & 15), “other sections of the population” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 6), “the various peoples and communities” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 9), “the different religious communities in Palestine” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 14); “each community” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 15); and “the respective communities in Palestine” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 23).

Per the second paragraph of the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, the League of Nations, in formally issuing the Mandate, chose to explicitly incorporate therein the principles set forth in the letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Zionist leader Lionel Walter Rothschild dated November 2, 1917 (commonly known as the “Balfour Declaration”), thereby elevating these principles from an important statement of British foreign policy (but lacking in any international authority) concerning the final disposition of the non-sovereign territory of Palestine to a foundation of international law with respect thereto. That letter states, in full, as follows:

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Those seeking to delegitimize the Jewish State ab initio often claim that, by issuing its Balfour Declaration, Britain promised a Land that it did not own (i.e., “Palestine”) to a group of people who lacked any claim to it (i.e., the Jewish people). While the first part of this claim is indisputably true, the second part of this claim is indisputably false, as the Balfour Declaration merely offered to facilitate the effectuation of preexisting Jewish rights to the Land of Israel.

David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain in 1917, subsequently confirmed that, by issuing the Balfour Declaration, Britain had intended to provide the Jewish people with the historic opportunity to create an independent Jewish State in the Land of Israel:

“The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty [i.e., the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 that terminated World War I] without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.”

(War Memoirs Of David Lloyd George (1933), p. 736-737; also quoted in the Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937, Chapter II (entitled “The War and the Mandate”), paragraph 20)

Although, from 1915 onwards, diplomatic representatives of Britain had also made various written declarations to foreign Arab leaders (e.g., the 1915 - 1916 letters from Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner of Egypt, to Hussein ibn Ali, Sherif of Mecca and ruler of the Hejaz region of Arabia) which, to a greater or lesser degree, contradicted the principles set forth in the 1917 Balfour Declaration (thereby negating the concept of eventual Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel), and although, in June 1922, the British government even issued an official White Paper (known as the “Command Paper of 1922” and alternatively as the “Churchill White Paper”) explicitly stating that the reestablishment of the Jewish National Home in Mandatory Palestine was never intended to result in Jewish sovereignty over any portion of the Land, the subsequent enactment by the League of Nations of the governing instrument for its Mandate for Palestine necessarily superseded all such declarations. This is so, because -- unlike Britain, which lacked any international authority (whether by means of anti-Zionist or philo-Zionist pronouncements) to legally affect the post-World War I status or final disposition of the non-sovereign territory of Palestine -- the League of Nations, acting as the instrument of the international community, did possess such authority. And, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (of the Treaty of Versailles), the League of Nations was prerogatived to exercise such international authority by establishing a Mandate (in the form of a Trust and its governing instrument) for the temporary governance of the non-sovereign territory of Palestine until its independence as a sovereign Jewish State.

Nevertheless, some have argued that, although the League of Nations was indeed prerogatived by the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 to create a Mandate for the non-sovereign territory of Palestine, it had been granted no authority by the international community to enact a governing instrument for that Mandate which granted exclusive national rights over that mandated territory to the Jewish people (rather than to the resident Arabs or, alternatively, to all of the inhabitants thereof without reference to ethnicity). This argument is refuted by the Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920 (formally entitled “The Treaty Of Peace Between The Allied And Associated Powers And Turkey”), which treaty was signed subsequent to the creation of the Mandate for Palestine (on April 24, 1920) but prior to the enactment of the Mandate’s governing instrument (on July 24, 1922). Like the Treaty of Versailles, which incorporated therein the Covenant of the League of Nations as its first 26 articles, the Treaty of Sèvres also incorporated therein the Covenant of the League of Nations as its first 26 articles. Section VII of the Treaty of Sèvres (entitled “Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine” and comprising Articles 94 - 97 thereof) endorsed all three Middle East mandates earlier created by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference (in April 1920). Article 95 of Section VII of the Treaty of Sèvres -- which sets forth the raison d’être of the Mandate for Palestine -- states, in full, as follows:

ARTICLE 95

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The Mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religious communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

Moreover, Article 129 of Section XII of the Treaty (entitled “Nationality”) states, in full, as follows:

ARTICLE 129

Jews of other than Turkish nationality who are habitually resident, on the coming into force of the present Treaty, within the boundaries of Palestine, as determined in accordance with Article 95 will ipso facto become citizens of Palestine to the exclusion of any other nationality.

The Treaty of Sèvres, signed by Turkey in the midst of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919 - 1922, was never ratified by the Turkish parliament due to the parliament’s refusal to accept the initial Greek territorial gains that were enshrined in the Treaty. However, Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres nonetheless constitutes an explicit instruction by the international community to the League of Nations via application of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (of the Treaty of Sèvres) that the only authorized purpose for the League’s earlier creation of a mandate for the non-sovereign territory of Palestine was to effect the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” (Treaty of Sèvres, Article 95, Paragraph 1). The subsequent enactment by the League of Nations of a governing instrument for the Mandate that bestowed upon the Jewish people exclusive national rights over the Land is fully consistent with the express language of Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres to the same effect. Similarly, the failure of the Mandate’s governing instrument to accord the resident Arabs any national rights over the Land is fully consistent with the express language of Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres that the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” would possess only “civil and religious rights” therein (Treaty of Sèvres, Article 95, Paragraph 1). The authoritative nature of Article 95 is further confirmed by the fact that its first paragraph (which explicitly incorporated the principles set forth in the Balfour Declaration) essentially became preambular Paragraphs 1 & 2 of the Mandate for Palestine, while its second paragraph essentially became Article 14 of the Mandate for Palestine.

Consequently, Britain’s Balfour Declaration became a part of international law, not only due to its incorporation into the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, but also due to its earlier incorporation into the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres.

Finally, it is noteworthy that more than one year prior to the San Remo conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who fathered the League of Nations, bluntly stated that the purpose of the prospective Mandate for Palestine would be the creation of an independent Jewish State, declaring on March 3, 1919 as follows:

“I am moreover persuaded that the allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.”

(quoted in the Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937, Chapter II (entitled “The War and the Mandate”), paragraph 21)

The Land subject to the Mandate for Palestine, consisting of 120,450 square kilometers, included territory lying west of the Jordan River, comprising 26,990 square kilometers (22% of the Land) and commonly known as cis-Jordania and also as the western portion of Mandatory Palestine (consisting of the districts of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza, comprising 6,220 square kilometers (5% of the Land), and territory which later became present-day Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines, comprising 20,770 square kilometers (17% of the Land)); as well as territory lying east of the Jordan River, comprising 93,460 square kilometers (78% of the Land) and commonly known as trans-Jordania and also as the eastern portion of Mandatory Palestine (consisting of the Golan Heights, comprising 1,160 square kilometers (1% of the Land), and territory which later became Transjordan, precursor to present-day Jordan, comprising 92,300 square kilometers (77% of the Land)). This data is restated in the following table:

Cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine	Land Area by Square Kilometer	Land Area by Square Mile	Percentage of Mandatory Palestine
Judea & Samaria & eastern portion of Jerusalem & Gaza	6,220 sq. km.	2,402 sq. miles	5%
Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines	20,770 sq. km.	8,019 sq. miles	17%
Total for cis-Jordania (western portion of Mandatory Palestine)	26,990 sq. km.	10,421 sq. miles	22%
Trans-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine	Land Area by Square Kilometer	Land Area by Square Mile	Percentage of Mandatory Palestine
Golan Heights	1,160 sq. km.	448 sq. miles	1%
Jordan (formerly Transjordan)	92,300 sq. km.	35,637 sq. miles	77%
Total for trans-Jordania (eastern portion of Mandatory Palestine)	93,460 sq. km.	36,085 sq. miles	78%

GRAND TOTALS

120,450 sq. km.

46,506 sq. miles

100%

On September 16, 1922, the Council of the League of Nations approved the proposal of Britain, as the Mandatory trustee of Mandatory Palestine, to remove from the Jewish National Home virtually all of the lands of the trans-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine, namely, the lands situated between the Jordan River and the Iraqi-Arabian frontiers. Britain, as Mandatory trustee, thereupon (1) barred all Jewish immigration thereto and all Jewish land purchases therein and (2) established therein the semi-autonomous Emirate of Transjordan, as a possession under British tutelage for Abdullah bin al-Hussein (commonly known as “Abdullah I”) and his Hashemite and allied Bedouin clans after the Hashemite dynasty began losing the civil war launched against it by Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud and his Wahhabist clans for control over Arabia.

Subsequently, in 1946, Britain, as Mandatory trustee, granted independence to the Emirate of Transjordan, which thereupon renamed itself the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (now formally known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan).

This chain of events raises 3 interrelated questions:

1. Did the Mandatory trustee have the authority to remove these eastern territories of Mandatory Palestine from the internationally-authorized Jewish National Home?

2. Did the Mandatory trustee have the authority to simultaneously create a semi-autonomous Arab entity -- an Arab National Home -- in these eastern territories of Mandatory Palestine?

3. Did the Mandatory trustee have the authority to subsequently establish an independent Arab State in these eastern territories of Mandatory Palestine?

With respect to the first question, Britain’s removal of these eastern territories from the Jewish National Home was explicitly authorized by Article 25 of the Mandate. However, Britain’s prohibition against any Jewish settlement activity (i.e., immigration and land purchases) in those eastern territories constituted a violation of Article 15 of the Mandate.

Article 25 thereof is reiterated, in full, below:

ARTICLE 25 In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

The first paragraph of Article 15 thereof is reiterated, in full, below:

ARTICLE 15 The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

With respect to the second question and the third question, nowhere in the Mandate -- not even in Article 25 thereof -- is there any explicit authorization for the creation of an “Arab National Home” -- let alone an “Arab State” -- in any portion of Mandatory Palestine. Yet, despite such lack of explicit authorization, the British Mandatory trustee initially created a semi-autonomous Arab entity (i.e., the Emirate of Transjordan) and subsequently established as that entity’s successor an independent Arab State (i.e., the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan) in eastern Mandatory Palestine. Despite the lack of explicit authorization in the Mandate, this exercise of Mandatory authority was lawful pursuant to Article 22, Paragraph 4 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (embedded in both the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Sèvres). This provision of the Covenant states that all of the territories placed under Mandatory governance (i.e., Mandatory Syria (formally known as “Mandatory Syria and the Lebanon”), Mandatory Mesopotamia, and Mandatory Palestine) were intended to eventually become independent States, meaning that the League of Nations intended that 100% of Mandatory Palestine (whether or not part of the Jewish National Home) would eventually attain independence. Consequently, despite the lack of explicit authorization in the Mandate for the creation of an “Arab National Home” or an “Arab State”, the creation of the Emirate of Transjordan and its subsequent independence as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan were implicitly authorized by Article 25 of the Mandate.

After Britain’s creation of the Emirate of Transjordan, the remaining Land over which the League of Nations had granted the Jewish people exclusive national rights consisted of 100% of cis-Jordania (i.e., western Mandatory Palestine, comprising all of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River) plus the Golan Heights portion of trans-Jordania. In this context, it is crucial to highlight that no subsequent modification to the Mandate for Palestine was ever approved by the Council of the League of Nations during its existence, which approval was required by Article 27 of the Mandate.

Yet, despite all of the foregoing, many opponents of Jewish sovereignty in any portion of former Mandatory Palestine claim that, even if the League of Nations was authorized by the international community to reestablish a Jewish National Home in western Mandatory Palestine, the League itself never intended that the Mandate for Palestine (i.e., the Trust) become a vehicle by which western Mandatory Palestine would be converted, upon the termination of the Mandate, from an internationally-supervised Jewish National Home into an independent Jewish State, the proof being that nowhere in the Mandate (i.e., the governing instrument) does it explicitly declare as its post-termination objective the creation of a Jewish State. Rather, the Mandate speaks only of a “national home for the Jewish people” and a “Jewish national home” in Mandatory Palestine. Conveniently ignoring that fact that the League of Nations’ consistent use of the word “national” in the Mandate to describe the status of Jewish habitation in Mandatory Palestine was deliberate, thereby signifying the League’s intention and expectation that the resident Jewish population would eventually achieve nationhood for that non-sovereign territory, these anti-Israel polemicists insist that -- nonetheless -- the Mandate did not grant to the Jewish people the collective right of self-determination.

The first response to this claim is that, pursuant to Article 22, Paragraph 4 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, 100% of Mandatory Palestine was intended by the League of Nations to attain independence. This is due to the fact that all of Mandatory Palestine was officially recognized as being among those former Ottoman-occupied lands which “... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.” Moreover, the Mandate itself (i.e., the governing instrument) acknowledged that the Mandate (i.e., the Trust) would eventually terminate (see Mandate for Palestine, preambular aragraph 1; and Articles 8 & 28).

The second response to this claim is that, except as set forth in Article 25 of the Mandate, the Jews of Mandatory Palestine were granted exclusive national rights thereto in the form of a “national home” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraphs 2 & 3; and Articles 2 & 4), while the Gentiles of Mandatory Palestine were accorded only “civil and religious rights” therein (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 2; and Article 2). Preambular paragraph 2 of the Mandate (which incorporates the Balfour Declaration) is particularly crucial because it links the creation of the Jewish National Home to the protection of the individual rights of Gentiles in Mandatory Palestine -- but not to the protection of the individual rights of Jews therein. This linkage makes sense only if the Mandate’s post-termination purpose was to create an independent State ruled by Jews; for, only in that case would it be necessary to provide for the protection of the individual rights of resident Gentiles and unnecessary to provide for the protection of the individual rights of resident Jews. If the Mandate had intended to also grant national rights to the Arab or other Gentile populations of Mandatory Palestine, then preambular paragraph 2 (providing for the protection of the individual rights of resident Gentiles) would have been rendered superfluous. It necessarily follows that, as confirmed by the statements of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, whenever western Mandatory Palestine attained independence, its Jewish population would continue to be the repository of exclusive national rights therein in the form of Jewish sovereignty over the Land. Moreover, it is illogical for the League of Nations to have declared, as its raison d'être for the enactment of the Mandate for Palestine, the reestablishment of a Jewish National Home, if that National Home was intended to be extinguished (i.e., subjected to Gentile governance) upon the Mandate’s termination.

Article 25 of the Mandate authorized the administrative separation of virtually all of eastern Mandatory Palestine from western Mandatory Palestine. The authorization to withhold Jewish self-determination only in the specified portion of trans-Jordania meant that there was no authorization to “postpone or withhold” Jewish self-determination elsewhere in Mandatory Palestine (i.e., cis-Jordania and the Golan Heights portion of trans-Jordania). This conclusion results from the application of the Latin-language legal doctrine known as “Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius” (meaning: "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other"). This conclusion is reinforced by Article 5 of the Mandate which prohibits the Mandatory trustee from otherwise removing territory (via relinquishment, lease or transfer of control) from the Jewish National Home.

Article 25 of the Mandate was created and subsequently implemented precisely because, absent its creation and implementation, upon the termination of the Mandate, 100% of Mandatory Palestine would have attained its independence as a Jewish State. Consequently, Article 25 of the Mandate -- especially in light of Article 5 thereof -- constituted the Mandate’s only legal mechanism for creating from Mandatory Palestine an independent Arab State. For, if (in contravention of Article 5 of the Mandate) the Mandatory trustee had possessed the inherent authority to remove portions of Mandatory Palestine from the Jewish National Home, then Article 25 of the Mandate would have been rendered superfluous. As Article 25 of the Mandate applied, by its explicit terms, only to specified territory lying east of the Jordan River, its raison d’être (i.e., withholding Jewish self-determination) did not apply to the remainder of Mandatory Palestine.

It is also pointed out that, if the international community did not actually intend for western Mandatory Palestine to eventually become an independent Jewish State, then Article 129 of the Treaty of Sèvres is rendered illogical. That provision bestowed Palestinian citizenship upon all Jewish inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine (unless they possessed Turkish citizenship) while stripping them of their previous citizenships. Consequently, if western Mandatory Palestine was never intended to become an independent Jewish State, then the Treaty of Sèvres, in the guise of creating a Jewish National Home in Mandatory Palestine per Article 95 of the Treaty, incomprehensibly sought to degrade the legal status of (non-Turkish) Jews resident there from being citizens of numerous independent States to being citizens of a forever-administered non-sovereign Jewish National Home. Obviously, Article 129 of the Treaty was created to implement and enhance -- rather than to obstruct and degrade -- the rights being bestowed upon the Jewish people via Article 22, Paragraph 4 of the Treaty in conjunction with Article 95 thereof, meaning that the Treaty intended to bestow upon (non-Turkish) Jews residing in Mandatory Palestine a citizenship that would eventually be equal to that of which they were being stripped, namely, citizenship in a territory that would, upon termination of the Mandate, become an independent Jewish State.

Moreover, it is wholly illogical for the League of Nations to have bestowed upon the Jewish people exclusive collective rights and upon the Arabs only individual rights in Mandatory Palestine during the period of the British trusteeship thereof, but to have intended a subsequent role reversal, namely, that the Arabs would inherit exclusive collective rights and that the Jewish people would inherit only individual rights upon that territory’s achievement of statehood.

Consequently, in light of the foregoing (including the raison d’être of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine) the entirety of the Land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., 100% of western Mandatory Palestine) and the Golan Heights were intended by the League of Nations to eventually become an independent Jewish State.

However, this raises the following compound question, namely, why did the governing instrument of the Mandate for Palestine:

(a) explicitly base its authority upon Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (per preambular paragraph 1 of the Mandate);

(b) explicitly incorporate the principles set forth in the Balfour Declaration (per preambular paragraph 2 of the Mandate);

(c) require the Mandatory trustee to encourage Jewish immigration and to facilitate Jewish settlement (per Article 6 of the Mandate);

(d) provide for the creation of a local Jewish government to assist and be tutored by the Mandatory Administration (per Article 4 of the Mandate);

(e) authorize the Mandatory Administration to delegate certain national governmental functions to the local Jewish government (per Article 11 of the Mandate); and

(f) make several references to the fact that the Mandate was only temporary (per Articles 8 & 28)

but refrain from explicitly declaring that the Mandate’s post-termination objective was the establishment of a Jewish State?

The answer is that growing opposition in both Britain and the Arab World convinced the League of Nations to approve a governing instrument for the Mandate that rendered eventual Jewish sovereignty implicit rather than explicit. In the several years between the creation of the Mandate (in 1920) and the issuance of the final version of its governing instrument (in 1922), Arab opposition to the creation of a Jewish State in Mandatory Palestine exponentially grew, resulting in widespread Arab pogroms against Jews throughout the Land of Israel (discussed elsewhere in this Essay).

In the meantime, Britain found itself under severe Arab diplomatic pressure to reverse the pro-Zionist policy embodied in its Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which portended the eventual creation of a Jewish State); and, for this reason, both chambers of the British parliament thereupon attempted to revoke the Balfour Declaration (which attempt, even if it had been successful, would not have legally effected a consequent revocation of the Mandate for Palestine).

All of the foregoing led Britain to issue its Command Paper of 1922 (which preceded the issuance of the final version of the governing instrument of the Mandate by only one month). In that document, Britain disingenuously declared that the Jewish National Home to be created and nurtured by the Mandate for Palestine was never intended to become an independent Jewish State.

Moreover, at Britain’s request, and in order to further appease the Arab World, the League of Nations in the final version of the Mandate (a) added Article 25 to the final version of the Mandate, which decimated the size of the originally-promised Jewish National Home by removing virtually all of trans-Jordania therefrom, and (b) omitted any overt reference to the matter of future sovereignty in cis-Jordania and the Golan Heights portion of trans-Jordania. However, the final version of the Mandate did leave intact the elemental building blocks for eventual Jewish sovereignty in western Mandatory Palestine and the Golan Heights.

Furthermore, it is reiterated that the final version of the Mandate declared that the objective of the Mandate was to create a “Jewish national home”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the adjective “national” as meaning: “of or relating to a nation”. Consequently, the Mandate’s stated objective was to create a supervised Jewish polity with the characteristics of nationhood, thereby rendering the creation of a Jewish national home the precursor for the establishment of an independent Jewish State upon termination of the Mandate.

However, even if -- despite all of the foregoing -- anti-Israel polemicists are still unwilling to accept the evidence that a Jewish National Home comprising cis-Jordania and the Golan Heights was intended by the League of Nations to eventually attain independence as a Jewish State, it is pointed out that there exists no evidence whatsoever to support the contrary hypothesis, namely that any portion of western Mandatory Palestine and the Golan Heights was intended by the League of Nations to attain independence as an Arab State. For, it bears reiterating that nowhere in the Mandate (even in Article 25 thereof) is there any authorization (whether explicit or implicit) for the creation of an “Arab National Home” -- let alone an “Arab State” -- anywhere in western Mandatory Palestine and the Golan Heights.

Yet, due to the implicit authorization of Article 25 of the Mandate, a British-administered Arab National Home (i.e., the Emirate of Transjordan), and subsequently an independent Arab State (i.e., the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, now formally known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan), were established by the British Mandatory trustee in eastern Mandatory Palestine.

Consequently, if the creation of an Arab State in virtually all of eastern Mandatory Palestine (evolving from the implicitly-authorized Arab National Home) is deemed by anti-Israeli polemicists to have been a legitimate objective of the Mandate, then how can the creation of a Jewish State (evolving from the explicitly-authorized Jewish National Home) in all of western Mandatory Palestine not be deemed to have also been a legitimate objective -- nay, based upon the Judeocentric nation-building provisions of the Mandate, the primary objective -- of the Mandate?

Alternatively stated, if -- as is claimed by anti-Israel polemicists -- present-day Israel’s creation is deemed to have been illegal under international law, as expressed via the Mandate for Palestine, then present-day Jordan’s creation must also be deemed to have been illegal under international law, as expressed via the Mandate for Palestine. However, unsurprisingly, no one who disputes the legality of Israel’s creation has ever disputed the legality of Jordan’s creation.

Moreover, under international law, pursuant to the Latin-language legal doctrine known as “Uti Possidetis Juris” (meaning: “You Possess As Of Right”), a State established on non-sovereign territory is deemed to have the same international borders as administratively existed for that non-sovereign territory. For example, according to this principle of international law, if French-occupied “French Guiana” became a sovereign State, then its international borders would be identical to its present administrative borders with Suriname, Brazil, and the North Atlantic Ocean. Consequently, under international law, any Jewish State emerging in cis-Jordania (i.e., western Mandatory Palestine) would automatically encompass all of cis-Jordania. Alternatively stated, under international law, the administrative borders of non-sovereign western Mandatory Palestine would automatically become the international borders of any Jewish State arising in its place. Obviously, the 1948 pan-Arab invasion of Israel prevented the legal doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris from fully taking effect until 1967.

In recognition of the legal doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris, in their respective peace treaties with Israel, both Egypt and Jordan:

(1) conceded that their respective international borders with Israel were identical to their respective borders with former western Mandatory Palestine, meaning that they implicitly acknowledged that Gaza and that Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem were inside Israel’s international borders, and thereby part of Israel’s territory; and

(2) agreed to respect Israel’s sovereignty over its territory.

Below are the relevant provisions of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty:

Article II.

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Article III

1. The Parties will apply between them the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law governing relations among states in times of peace. In particular:

- They recognize and will respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

(Article II and Article III, paragraph 1, first subparagraph of the “Peace Treaty between the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt, dated March 26, 1979”)

Below are the relevant provisions of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty:

Article 2. General Provisions

The Parties will apply between them the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law governing relations among states in times of peace. In particular:

1. They recognise and will respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

Article 3. International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.”

(Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 3, paragraphs 1 - 3 of the “Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, dated October 26, 1994”).

It is noteworthy that, in alignment with their recognition of Israel’s present international borders as being identical to former western Mandatory Palestine’s administrative borders, neither treaty required Israel to withdraw from any of its reacquired territories, as none of these territories ever belonged to Egypt or Jordan, and consequently any treaty-required Israeli withdrawals therefrom would have violated the Jewish State’s territorial rights under the Mandate for Palestine and the legal doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris. It is also noteworthy that, in addition to not requiring Israel to withdraw from any of its reacquired territories, neither treaty purported to alter Israel’s recognized international borders by excepting therefrom the relevant reacquired border enclave (e.g., by stating that, notwithstanding the demarcation of the Israel-Egypt border, Israel lacked a recognized international border with Egypt wherever Egypt was adjacent to Gaza; and by stating that, notwithstanding the demarcation of the Israel-Jordan border, Israel lacked a recognized international border with Jordan wherever Jordan was adjacent to the “West Bank”).

Furthermore, neither treaty identified the relevant reacquired border enclave as “Palestine” or otherwise stated that such enclave belonged to the Palestine Liberation Organization or to the “Palestinian” Arabs.

Moreover, by employing the “without prejudice” language in the international boundary section thereof, each treaty signaled that it took no position on any future change of legal status for Gaza or on any future change of legal status for Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, with the result that neither treaty bound any party, including Israel, to any particular resolution of “Palestinian” territorial claims against Israel.

However, didn’t Annex I (a) of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, as referenced in Article 3 thereof, downgrade the Israel-Jordan international border to an Israel-Jordan administrative border, thereby depriving both Jordan and Israel of an international border wherever Jordan was adjacent to the “West Bank”?

Well, no.

Below is the relevant portion of Annex I (a):

7. The orthophoto maps and image maps showing the line separating Jordan from the territory that came under Israeli Military government control in 1967 shall have that line indicated in a different presentation and the legend shall carry on it the following disclaimer:

“This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory.”

(Israel-Jordan peace treaty, Annex I (a), Section 2, Subsection 1, Paragraph 7)

There is no contradiction between the Treaty provision declaring an international border between Israel and Jordan, which is same border as existed between former western Mandatory Palestine and Transjordan, to wit:

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

(Israel-Jordan peace treaty, Article 3, paragraph 1)

and the Treaty provision declaring an administrative border between the “West Bank” and Jordan whenever the latter is adjacent to the former (per Israel-Jordan peace treaty, Annex I (a), Section 2, Subsection 1, Paragraph 7).

There is no contradiction between the foregoing treaty provisions, because the “administrative boundary” described in Annex I (a), Section 2, Subsection 1, Paragraph 7 of the Treaty specifically refers to the border between Jordan and the “West Bank”, rather than to the border between Jordan and Israel. This conclusion is buttressed by Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Treaty declaring that the Annex I (a)-delineated border -- which includes the Jordan-“West Bank” administrative border -- constitutes the international border between Jordan and Israel. Alternatively stated, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Treaty, the boundary set forth in Annex I (a) of the Treaty constitutes the international border between Jordan and Israel even if a portion of that international border also constitutes the administrative border between the Jordan and the “West Bank”, to wit:

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

(Israel-Jordan peace treaty, Article 3, paragraph 2)

Consequently, just as Egypt’s administrative border with Gaza is also Egypt’s international border with Israel, likewise Jordan’s administrative border with the “West Bank” is also Jordan’s international border with Israel.

Lastly, even if the Jewish people (acting through the Jewish State) occupied rather than reacquired Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in the Six Day War of 1967, the “Occupation” ceased to exist with respect to those districts, as soon as Egypt and Jordan renounced their respective claims thereto in favor of Israel by entering into respective peace treaties with Israel that extinguished those respective claims. The present-day “Palestinian” claim (with worldwide diplomatic support) that the “Occupation” has nonetheless continued to persist even after Egypt and Jordan renounced their respective claims to these districts, based upon the argument that these districts never belonged to Egypt or Jordan, but rather to the “Palestinian people”, ignores the inconvenient fact that the claim of an Israeli “Occupation” is based exclusively upon Israel having seized these districts from Egypt and Jordan (rather than from the “Palestinian people”), thereby allegedly triggering the “Occupation” provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Consequently, although Egypt’s and Jordan’s serial breaches of their respective 1949 Armistice Agreements with Israel legally erased the respective armistice demarcation lines thereof, the subsequent Israel-Egypt peace treaty (in 1979) and the subsequent Israel-Jordan peace treaty (in 1994) definitively confirmed that prior erasure.

Returning to the era of the Mandate for Palestine, after illegally barring all Jewish immigration and land acquisition east of the Jordan River (i.e., in trans-Jordania) via its creation of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1922, Britain again violated its fiduciary obligations to the Jewish people under the Mandate. For, pursuant to the Franco-British Agreement of 1923, also known as the “Newcombe-Paulet Agreement” (formally entitled the “Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the British and French governments respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme. Paris, March 7, 1923.”), Britain, as the Mandatory trustee of Mandatory Palestine, ceded to France, as the Mandatory trustee of Mandatory Syria, the small portion of eastern Mandatory Palestine not allocated to the Emirate of Transjordan, namely, the Golan Heights. This transfer was illegal under international law per Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which states, in full, as follows:

“ARTICLE 5 The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”

As the Mandate for Palestine was explicitly predicated upon the preexisting historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, it is noteworthy that the Hebrew tribes, under the leadership of Moses, first settled the Golan Heights, then known as Bashan, circa 1400 BCE (see Numbers 21:33-35; and Deuteronomy 3:1-10), and that, within the territory of Bashan, the biblical City of Golan, for which the Golan Heights is named, was one of the 48 Levitical cities (see Joshua 21:27) and was also one of the 6 cities of refuge (see Deuteronomy 4:41-43; and Joshua 21:27) established in the biblical Land of Israel.

However, despite the illegality of the detachment of that historically-Jewish territory from Mandatory Palestine and its attachment to Mandatory Syria, when the present-day State of Syria was subsequently created in 1946 upon the termination of the Mandate for Syria, present-day Syria's territory included the Golan Heights.

It is noteworthy that Israel’s possession of the Golan Heights from 1967 to the present time exceeds the 44 years that this territory was illegally held by Mandatory Syria (i.e., 1923 - 1946 = 23 years) and present-day Syria (i.e., 1946 - 1967 = 21 years).

As news of the imminent creation of the Mandate for Palestine (i.e., the Trust) at the upcoming San Remo conference began to circulate, the Arabs of cis-Jordania began a campaign of terror attacks (via arson, bombings, knifings, shootings, and riots) against the Jewish communities thereof.

In March 1920, before the San Remo conference, an Arab mob attacked and destroyed the nascent Jewish village of Tel Hai (located in the Upper Galilee region).

In April 1920, before the San Remo conference, over a four-day period during which all British military forces were withdrawn from their positions, and many British and Arab policeman actually joined the rampaging mob, hundreds of Jews residing in the Old City of Jerusalem were maimed and massacred during widespread rioting incited by Antisemitic speeches given in honor of the Islamic “Nabi Musa” (ironically meaning: “Prophet Moses”) pilgrimage holiday, during which the organized Arab mob shouted in rhyme: “Filastin baladna; wa al-Yahud kalabna” (meaning: “Palestine is our country; and the Jews are our dogs”).

Later that month, during the San Remo conference, an Arab mob overran and destroyed the Ottoman-era Jewish village of Bnei Yehuda (located in the Golan Heights).

In May 1921 Arabs massacred and injured hundreds of Jews residing in Arab-dominated Jaffa, resulting in the flight of all surviving Jews to the adjacent Ottoman-era Jewish town of Tel Aviv. Subsequently, Arabs attacked and attempted to destroy the Ottoman-era Jewish town of Petah Tikvah, followed by an assault on the Ottoman-era Jewish town of Rehovot.

The 1920 Jerusalem pogrom and the 1921 Jaffa pogrom led, respectively, to the impaneling by Britain of the Palin Commission of Inquiry of 1920 and the Haycraft Commission of Inquiry of 1921. Although the Jewish leadership of Mandatory Palestine hoped that these investigative commissions would issue unequivocal condemnations of the rampant anti-Jewish violence then sweeping across the Land, thereby resulting in greater police protection for the mostly-unarmed Jewish population, both Commissions issued reports which, instead, focused on Arab grievances, essentially concluding that Jewish immigration and land purchases were the root causes of anti-Jewish violence, mostly due to Britain’s belief that such Jewish activities -- although authorized and encouraged by the Mandate for Palestine -- were understandably viewed by the resident Arab population (both Muslim and Christian) as intolerable provocations.

It is telling that, approximately 100 years later, the international community continues to view each and every Arab atrocity against the Jewish population of the Land of Israel through the prism of Arab grievances that predictably portray genocidal Arab aggressors as hapless victims of Jewish provocation. That the label affixed by the Arabs to this “provocation” has mutated -- from “Jewish Immigration and Land Purchases” (1920 - 1948), to “The Illegitimate Existence of the Zionist Entity” (1948 - 1967), to “The Occupation and Jewish Settlements” (1967 - Present Time) -- in order to suit the prevailing Zeitgeist among the nations matters little. For, the real root cause of Arab aggression against the Jewish population of the biblical Land of Israel has remained unchanged, namely, the refusal of much of the Islamic World to accept the legitimate presence of a sovereign Jewish National Home in any portion of the Land.

Yet, aren’t the Islamo-fascist enemies of the Jewish State ordinary human beings who share with the Jewish people the universal aspiration to create a stable and prosperous existence for themselves and their families? Well, yes. Consequently, doesn’t logic dictate that Israel should view its enemies through the lens of that shared aspiration? And doesn’t logic further dictate that, if offered territorial concessions and economic incentives, these enemies will accept a compromise with the Jewish people that facilitates the realization of that shared aspiration for both Jews and Arabs? Well, no and no. That is because, although these enemies, like all human beings, do indeed aspire to a stable and prosperous existence for themselves and their families, they also hate the Jewish people, and consequently aspire to annihilate them. In prioritizing their Jew-hatred over their aspiration for a stable and prosperous existence, the Jewish State’s enemies have chosen a perpetual war over an enduring peace. Consequently, it has always been a Grand Delusion to believe that, because the Jewish State’s enemies aspire to the same bright future for themselves and their families as do the Jewish people, these enemies would be willing to abandon their genocidal campaign against the Jewish people in exchange for a negotiated mixture of territorial concessions and economic incentives. In light of the foregoing, it would be suicidal for the Jewish State to do anything which assists its enemies in achieving their genocidal objectives (such as ceding to them a sovereign territorial base in the Land of Israel).

Exemplifying these Truths in its founding document (entitled “The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement” of August 18, 1988), the Islamic Resistance Movement (which is more commonly known by its Arabic-language acronym “Hamas”, meaning: “Enthusiasm”) has bluntly and candidly explained its eternal opposition to the existence of a Jewish nation-state in the biblical Land of Israel, as follows:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam obliterates it, as it has obliterated its predecessors.

(excerpt from the Preamble thereof)

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement [i.e., the Islamic Resistance Movement] is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic World, until the Enemy [i.e., the Jewish people] is vanquished and Allah's Victory is realized.

(excerpt from the Introduction thereof)

The Prophet [i.e., Mohammed ibn Abdullah, the founder of Islam], prayer and peace be upon him, said: “The Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! O Servant of Allah! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”

(excerpt from Article 7 thereof)

For a long time, the Enemies [i.e., the Jews] have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the Achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realization of their Dream. With their money, they took control of the World media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the World with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the World for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there. You may speak as much as you want about regional and World wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate [which was abolished by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of present-day Turkey, in 1924], making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the World. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their State [i.e., the State of Israel]. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the World through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without their fingerprints on it.

(excerpt from Article 22 thereof)

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

(excerpt from Article 28 thereof)

Moreover, even the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (which is an instrumentality of the umbrella terrorist entity known as the Palestine Liberation Organization) -- by manipulating the nomenclature of human rights through its internationally-supported demand for demographic “restorative justice” -- has also, albeit more cleverly, expressed its eternal opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish State by explaining as follows:

“Statehood [for “Palestine”] will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees [to Israel proper, i.e., the “Palestinian” territory which became the State of Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines]. … The [“Palestinian”] State is [to be defined by] the 1967 borders [i.e., the “West Bank” and Gaza], but the refugees are not only from the 1967 borders [i.e., the “West Bank” and Gaza]. The refugees are from all over Palestine [i.e., including Israel proper]. When we have a State accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

(excerpt from an interview with Abdullah Abdullah, Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Lebanon, in the Lebanese newspaper “The Daily Star” on September 15, 2011)

Shortly thereafter, Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, leader of the dominant “Fatah” faction thereof, and President of the Palestinian Authority, removed the camouflage by bluntly declaring as follows:

“I’ve said it before and I will say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the [Israeli] State or [recognize] a Jewish State.”

(excerpt from an interview with Mahmoud Abbas on the Egyptian TV network “Dream2TV” on October 23, 2011)

Subsequently, Jibril Rajoub, senior P.L.O. official, Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Olympic Committee, reiterated -- in the clearest terms -- the Palestinian Authority’s rejection of the Jewish State’s right to exist by stating as follows:

“We, the Palestinians, are the enemies of Israel. There is no going back to negotiations. Listen. We, as yet, do not have a nuke [i.e., nuclear bomb]; but I swear that if we had a nuke, we would have used it [against Israel] this very morning.”

(excerpt from an interview with Jibril Rajoub on the Lebanese TV network “al-Mayadeen” on May 2, 2013)

Approximately six months later, Mahmoud Abbas reiterated the Palestinian Authority’s rejection of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people by again bluntly declaring as follows:

“We don't accept the Jewish State or the Jewishness of the [Israeli] State. This is something that we won't accept.”

(excerpt from a speech given by Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting of the dominant Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization on November 4, 2013)

The foregoing rejection of Israel’s legal status was reinforced by the Arab League (formally known as the “League of Arab States”) in its final communique at the conclusion of its summit in Kuwait on March 26, 2014, which declared, in part, as follows:

“We express our absolute and decisive rejection to recognizing Israel as a Jewish State.”

Mahmoud Abbas echoed that pan-Arab rejection at a subsequent emergency session of the Arab League in Egypt on November 29, 2014 by once again declaring as follows:

“We will never recognize the Jewishness of the State of Israel.”

That the P.L.O. seeks to replace rather than accommodate the Jewish State is further evidenced by the fact that the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority, inter alia:

(1) pays generous everlasting monthly stipends to convicted “Palestinian” terrorists in Israeli prisons (which stipends continue to be paid even after such terrorists are released from prison), and also to the families of dead “Palestinian” terrorists, with the amount of such stipends being based upon the severity of the atrocity and the length of imprisonment -- and the foregoing “pay for slay” stipends are even being given to the imprisoned terrorists and to the families of the dead terrorists who invaded Israel proper and perpetrated the horrific barbarities of October 7, 2023;

(2) has officially declared January 1 to be a day of celebration in honor of the P.L.O.’s first terrorist attack against Israel (which occurred on January 1, 1965);

(3) has officially declared May 15 to be a day of mourning for the failed pan-Arab attempt to destroy Israel as soon as it became a sovereign State (which occurred on May 15, 1948);

(4) demonizes the Jewish State and propagates blood libels (e.g., that Jews murder Gentiles in order to use their blood for religious purposes; that the Israeli army has been ordered to infect “Palestinian” Arabs with viruses; and that Israel poisons “Palestinian” Arab water sources) and derogatory epithets (e.g., that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs; that Jews are dogs; and that Jews stain the Temple Mount with their dirty feet) against the Jewish people through government-dictated mosque sermons, government-controlled media and coordinated speeches by government officials;

(5) prohibits activities which promote normalization between its populace and Israeli Jews;

(6) names (or renames) town squares, schools, sporting events and youth camps after “Palestinian” Arab terrorists;

(7) officially declares via government-issued maps, government-dictated mosque sermons, government-controlled media and coordinated speeches by government officials that there is no historical or religious connection between the Jewish people and the “Occupied State of Palestine” and that, consequently, the “Occupied State of Palestine” encompasses 100% of the territory that is presently the State of Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines, thereby messaging to its populace that the Jewish State was and remains an illegitimate creation and that the “Occupied State of Palestine” stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; and

(8) impresses upon its youth the importance of personally aspiring to achieve “martyrdom” in order to “liberate” the “Occupied State of Palestine”, which, in this context, means being killed during the commission or in the aftermath of terrorist attacks against Jews (even if Gentiles are also killed or maimed during such attacks).

Furthermore, as its price for making “peace” with Israel, the P.L.O. has issued four main non-negotiable demands, namely, that Israel must:

(a) shrink to its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines, thereby

(i) rendering Israel only 15 kilometers (approximately 9 miles) wide at its narrowest point in the Coastal Plain (which is narrower than Washington, D.C. from its northwest boundary to its southwest boundary), and

(ii) forcing Israel to abandon Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, its Western Wall and its adjacent Old City Jewish Quarter;

(b) create a sovereign “Palestinian” Arab transportation corridor, which will bisect Israel, in order to connect the P.L.O.-ruled “West Bank” to the Hamas-ruled Gaza;

(c) expel every Jew (numbering more than 650,000 as of 2020) from Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem; and

(d) permit the immigration to Israel of more than 5,000,000 foreign-born Arab “refugees”.

In tandem with the P.L.O.’s refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, this “peace” offer (which enjoys the unconditional support of Israel’s “peace partners” Egypt and Jordan) constitutes an explicit blueprint for the destruction of the Jewish State.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the real root cause of the eternal “Palestinian” Arab Jihad (meaning: a holy war) against the Jewish State better than the annual “Palestinian” denunciation of Britain’s Balfour Declaration, which served as the inspiration for (and which was incorporated into the Preamble of) the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which, in turn, served as the international legal basis for the resurrection of the Jewish Commonwealth in the biblical Land of Israel. For example, on October 31, 2013, the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information posted the following statement on its English-language website concerning the Balfour Declaration:

“On the 96th anniversary of Balfour Declaration

Date: 31 Oct 2013

Balfour Declaration is an illegal promise made by someone who does not own to someone who does not deserve.

Since the UK Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour pronounced the Balfour Declaration on 2 November 1917, promising a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, a shameful chapter in human rights violations started to unfold when a nation, the British, promised another nation, the Jews, the land of a third nation, the Palestinians. By promising Jews, who made up 6% of the inhabitants of Palestine, their own State, the declaration violated the rights of the other 94% of the indigenous population.

The declaration arrogantly referred to the majority population of Palestine as “the non-Jewish community in Palestine” and contradicted the 1916 McMahon-Hussain agreement and the principles of national self-determination enshrined in the international law and IHL [International Humanitarian Law].

A 67-word promise ignited an almost century-long conflict and violations to human and civil rights of the Palestinians. The declaration continues to serve as the bases for a racial discrimination system forcibly inflicted on Palestine and the Palestinians putting former South Africa Apartheid regime to shame.

To add injury to the insult, many of the superpowers continue supporting the Israeli occupation to the cradle of Christianity and sacred shrines of Islam, an occupation disgraced with flagrant violations to human rights and democracy. An occupation that is not hesitant to build a racial separation wall deep in the 1967-occupied land at the time when the World celebrates anniversaries of the fall of the Berlin wall.

On the 96th anniversary, more than 11 million Palestinians await justice and redress of a historical ongoing injustice. The Palestinians have already been granted the status of a UN-observer state; this entails full membership of all other UN and international organizations and platforms and further entails exerting unyielding pressure on the Israeli occupation authority to stop violations of Palestinian human rights and confiscation of Palestinian land and to ensure the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, the victims of the ill-famed declaration, including their right to return to their homes and property [in what is now the State of Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines]. All the aforementioned essentially requires having Israel respect international law and releasing all the Palestinian prisoners it unlawfully detains in its prisons. It’s but basic that Israel is required to demonstrate seriousness and dedication to peace negotiations that the Palestinian leadership continue calling for.”

The subtext of labeling the Tree (i.e., the Balfour Declaration) as being irredeemably illegitimate is that its Fruit (i.e., the Jewish State) is likewise irredeemably illegitimate.

Even Egypt and Jordan, with which the State of Israel now has formal peace treaties (effected, respectively, in 1979 and 1994), acknowledge only the Jewish State’s de facto existence (i.e., tentative and provisional control over territory) -- which is the reason why the relationship between the Jewish State and these two Arab States is best described as a “cold peace” (i.e., minimal non-belligerency rather than normalized relations). This is because, in violation of their respective peace treaties with Israel, each of these States has stigmatized the notion of normalization with Israel, by:

(1) discouraging its citizens from visiting the Jewish State via a campaign of government harassment (against those who seek to visit) and retaliation (against those who do visit) by the government’s intelligence services and/or the government-licensed occupational guilds; and

(2) allowing State-controlled media to:

(a) demonize Israel and the Jewish people, and

(b) demonize and threaten violence against Arab elites, such as singers and models who commit the sin of being photographed with Israeli celebrities (anywhere in the World), and journalists and academics who commit the sin of making positive statements about the Jewish State.

Moreover, both of these “peace partners” continue to spearhead the numerous resolutions issued by every component of the United Nations system (i.e., its General Assembly, its Security Council, its constituent committees, its specialized agencies and its affiliated organizations) which portray Israel as the source of Evil in the World.

The Arab pogroms of the first decade of the Mandate, punctuated by periods of calm, culminated in the coordinated atrocities of August 1929 during which the Arabs of Hebron massacred 67 and the Arabs of Safed massacred 22 of their Jewish neighbors, and during which the Arabs of Tulkarm, Jenin, Nablus, Gaza and other Arab-dominated localities also murdered, maimed and expelled the tiny Jewish communities within their midst. Unsurprisingly, the British Mandatory authorities arrested only a token number of the perpetrators, many of whom were Arab police officers employed by the Mandatory government. Moreover, in exacerbation of the Hebron pogrom, the British Mandatory authorities expelled the remainder of Hebron's ancient Jewish community. These massacres and expulsions led to the impaneling by Britain of the Shaw Commission of Inquiry of 1929. The Commission’s report, while blaming the Arabs for the violence, nonetheless determined that the root cause therefor was continued Jewish immigration and concomitant land purchases, as a result of which it recommended severely curtailing both activities.

Subsequently, in 1933, as Jewish immigration dramatically increased in the wake of Adolf Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany in January of that year, Arab violence again exploded, not only against the Jewish population of the western (i.e., cis-Jordania) portion of Mandatory Palestine, but -- for the first time -- also against the British Mandatory authorities.

These periodic assaults again spiked in April 1936 when the leadership of the Arabs of western Mandatory Palestine launched a series of terror attacks (via mob violence, firebombing, shootings, and knifings) against Jewish population centers (including Jewish neighborhoods of mixed cities) and British Mandatory authorities. This jihad, which raged until August 1939, was denominated by the Arabs as the “Great Arab Revolt”.

Alarmed by the continuing Arab violence, the British government impaneled a Palestine Royal Commission (commonly known as the “Peel Commission”) in August 1936 to determine the causes of the Arab unrest and the means by which it might be ameliorated. In July 1937, the Commission issued its report (commonly known as the “Peel Commission Report”) to the British Parliament, which opined, as follows:

After examining this and other evidence and studying the course of events in Palestine since the War [i.e., World War I], we have no doubt as to what were “the underlying causes of the disturbances” of last year. They were: --

(i) The desire of the Arabs for national independence [in western Mandatory Palestine].

(ii) Their hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home [in western Mandatory Palestine].

We make the following comments on these two causes: --

(i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “disturbances” [i.e., Arab riots and atrocities] of 1920 [i.e., the Jerusalem pogrom against Jews], 1921 [i.e., the Jaffa pogrom against Jews], 1929 [i.e., the territory-wide pogroms against and expulsions of Jews] and 1933 [i.e., the territory-wide pogroms against Jews, accompanied by attacks against British Mandatory authorities].

(ii) They were, and always have been, inextricably linked together. The Ba1four Declaration and the Mandate under which it was to be implemented involved the denial of national independence [to the Arabs of western Mandatory Palestine] at the outset. The subsequent growth of the [Jewish] National Home created a practical obstacle, and the only serious one, to the concession later of national independence [for the Arabs of western Mandatory Palestine]. It was believed that its [i.e., the Jewish National Home’s] further growth might mean the political as well as economic subjection of the Arabs to the Jews, so that, if ultimately the Mandate should terminate and Palestine become independent, it would not be national independence in the Arab sense but self-government by a Jewish majority.

(iii) They were the only “underlying” causes. All the other factors were complementary or subsidiary, aggravating the two causes or helping to determine the time at which the disturbances broke out.

(Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter IV (entitled “The Disturbances of 1936”), paragraphs 43 & 44)

The Arabs of western Mandatory Palestine hated and feared the creation of the Jewish National Home precisely because they correctly understood the League of Nations’ creation of a Jewish National Home in western Mandatory Palestine to be the precursor for the establishment, upon termination of the Mandate, of an independent Jewish State therein.

Yet, the Peel Commission also concluded that Jewish immigration, Jewish land purchases and Jewish economic activities, occurring after the creation of Mandatory Palestine in April 1920, had spurred Arab immigration to Mandatory Palestine, had increased Arab wealth and Arab employment there, and had improved Arab medical care there, as follows:

It remains to examine the validity of the Jewish claim that this advance has been largely due to the establishment of the National Home. After considering the evidence submitted to us, both orally and in writing, by the Jewish representatives on this question, we have come to the following conclusions: --

(i) The large import of Jewish capital into Palestine has had a general fructifying effect on the economic life of the whole country.

(ii) The expansion of Arab industry and citriculture has been largely financed by the capital thus obtained.

(iii) Jewish example has done much to improve Arab cultivation, especially of citrus.

(iv) Owing to Jewish development and enterprise, the employment of Arab labour has increased in urban areas, particularly in the ports.

(v) The reclamation and anti-malaria work undertaken in Jewish “colonies” have benefited all Arabs in the neighbourhood.

(vi) Institutions founded with Jewish funds primarily to serve the National Home, have also served the Arab population. Hadassah, for example, treats Arab patients, notably at the Tuberculosis Hospital at Safad and the Radiology Institute at Jerusalem, admits Arab countryfolk to the clinics of its Rural Sick Benefit Fund, and does much infant welfare work for Arab mothers.

(vii) The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illustrated by the fact that the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the Census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase per cent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 per cent.

(Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter V (entitled “The Present Situation”), paragraph 32)

It is noteworthy that, during the Mandatory period, the Arabs’ desire to benefit from Jewish immigration contradictorily coexisted with their desire to destroy the Jewish National Home -- based upon the dubious theory that, although those benefits were created by the Jews, those benefits were nonetheless separable from the Jews, and consequently maintainable even without the Jews. This contradictory dual desire to benefit and destroy continues to coexist among a majority of the Arab citizenry of present-day Israel. For, while a majority of them identify with the State of Israel (due to the economic benefits, educational opportunities, healthcare services, and civil liberties afforded to them as citizens), they also continue to support activities and policies that undermine the continued existence of the Jewish State (e.g., terrorist attacks against Israel; the implementation of a “right of return” for more than 5 million hostile foreign-born Arabs to Israel proper, etc.) pursuant to the same 100-year-old rationale that the benefits conferred upon resident Arabs by the Jewish National Home would continue to exist even after the Jewish National Home ceased to exist.

In light of the fact that Jewish immigration to western Mandatory Palestine triggered Arab immigration thereto during the period of 1922 - 1931, it clear that the ubiquitous claim made by anti-Israel polemicists that Jews immigrating to western Mandatory Palestine entered a Land already inhabited by Arab communities is a half-truth. For, Jews immigrating to western Mandatory Palestine during the foregoing time period entered a Land already inhabited, not only by Arab communities, but also by Jewish communities. Likewise, Arabs immigrating to western Mandatory Palestine during the same time period -- mostly from nearby areas that are part of present-day Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon -- entered a Land that was already inhabited by Jewish communities as well as Arab communities. In fact, as a testament to the huge influx of foreign Arabs into western Mandatory Palestine in the final years of its existence, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East defines “Palestinian” refugees as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” (per the website of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in the section entitled “Palestine Refugees”, under the heading entitled “Who Are Palestine Refugees?”), meaning that any Egyptian, Transjordanian, Iraqi, Moroccan, Algerian, Libyan, Syrian, Lebanese or other foreign Arab who migrated to western Mandatory Palestine during those final years (i.e., June 1 1946 to May 15, 1948) and thereafter departed therefrom as a result of “the 1948 conflict” automatically became a displaced “Palestinian”.

Of course, there was also Arab immigration -- as there was also Jewish immigration -- to the Land of Israel during the Ottoman Empire. In fact, most of the Bedouin Arab tribes presently residing in northern Israel migrated to northwestern Mandatory Palestine from present-day Syria, while most of the Bedouin Arab tribes presently residing in southern Israel migrated to southwestern Mandatory Palestine from the Sinai region of present-day Egypt. However, most of the Bedouin Arab tribes presently residing in southern Israel’s Beersheba region migrated to that area of southwestern Mandatory Palestine from the southern region of present-day Jordan and from the Hejaz region of present-day Saudi Arabia, according to the British-commissioned census entitled “Palestine: Report And General Abstracts Of The Census of 1922”, to wit:

The Ottoman authorities in 1914 placed the [Bedouin] tribal population of Beersheba at 55,000, and since that date there has been a migration of [Bedouin] tribes from the Hejaz and Southern Transjordan into the Beersheba area mainly as a result of a succession of adequate rainfalls [in the Beersheba area] and of pressure exerted by other [Bedouin] tribes east of the River Jordan.

(except from paragraph 13 of the census summary (entitled “Report on the Census of Palestine, 1922”) of “Palestine: Report And General Abstracts Of The Census of 1922”, at page 4 thereof)

Consequently, the claim that the entire Arab population of western Mandatory Palestine was longstanding, while the entire Jewish population thereof was only of recent vintage, is demonstrably false. Nonetheless, that claim continues to be successfully used by anti-Israel polemicists to promote the grand Falsehood that, without provocation, the Jewish population of western Mandatory Palestine, comprising recent invaders, violently dispossessed the Arab population thereof, comprising indigenous inhabitants, during the first half of the 20th Century.

In light of the increasing hostility of the resident Arab population (both Muslim and Christian) towards the resident Jewish population, the Peel Commission concluded that, despite the raison d’être of the Mandate for Palestine, it was infeasible for Britain, as Mandatory, to permit the entirety of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine to become a Jewish State ruling over a revanchist and irredentist Arab population (see Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter XX (entitled “The Force of Circumstances”), paragraph 19). Moreover, due to this intense hostility, the concept of a binational state, consisting of confederated Jewish and Arab cantons, was also rejected (see Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter XXI (entitled “Cantonisation”), paragraphs 1 - 11). Instead, the Peel Commission recommended that the Mandate be terminated and that the western portion of Mandatory Palestine be partitioned into

(1) a miniscule sovereign Jewish State (constituting approximately 20% of cis-Jordania and approximately 4.4% of original Mandatory Palestine),

(2) a substantially larger sovereign Arab State (constituting approximately 70% of cis-Jordania and approximately 15.4% of original Mandatory Palestine) into which would be merged the semi-autonomous Emirate of Transjordan (thereby constituting, after such merger, approximately 92.4% of original Mandatory Palestine), and

(3) in order to protect international access to Christendom’s sites of pilgrimage, three small non-sovereign enclaves comprised, respectively, of:

(a) Jerusalem and certain of its environs (including Bethlehem),

(b) Nazareth, and

(c) Lake Kinneret (which the Report alternatively labels as the “Sea of Galilee” and as “Lake Tiberias”) to be governed by a new British-administered League of Nations mandate (constituting approximately 10% of cis-Jordania and approximately 2.2% of original Mandatory Palestine)

(see Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter XXII (entitled “A Plan of Partition”), Paragraphs 1 - 22).

Incredibly, the Peel Commission also recommended that the proposed Jewish State be required to pay a subsidy to the proposed Arab State in order to compensate the latter for (1) its expected poor economic performance, and (2) its self-perceived loss of Arab territory to the Jewish people, to wit:

As we have explained in an earlier chapter, the Jews contribute more per capita to the revenues of Palestine than the Arabs, and the Government has thereby been enabled to maintain public services for the Arabs at a higher level than would otherwise have been possible. Partition would mean, on the one hand, that the Arab Area would no longer profit from the taxable capacity of the Jewish Area. On the other hand, (1) the Jews would acquire a new right of sovereignty in the Jewish Area; (2) that Area, as we have defined it, would be larger than the existing area of Jewish land and settlement; (3) the Jews would be freed from their present liability for helping to promote the welfare of Arabs outside that Area. It seems to us, therefore, not unreasonable to suggest that the Jewish State should pay a subvention to the Arab State when Partition comes into effect. There have been recent precedents for equitable financial arrangements of this kind in those connected with the separation of Sind from Bombay and of Burma from the Indian Empire; and in accordance with those precedents we recommend that a Finance Commission should be appointed to consider and report as to what the amount of the subvention should be.

(Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter XXII (entitled “A Plan of Partition”), paragraph 23)

The advantages to the Arabs of Partition on the lines we have proposed may be summarized as follows:

…

(iv) As a set-off to the loss of territory the Arabs regard as theirs, the Arab State will receive a subvention from the Jewish State. …

(Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter XXIII (entitled “Conclusion”), subparagraph (iv) of paragraph 2)

The Peel Commission thereby (1) sought to penalize the resident Jewish population for its prodigious economic output by redistributing Jewish wealth to the resident Arab population, and (2) also sought to validate the fallacious Arab claim that the Jewish people (via the exercise of their legal rights under the Mandate for Palestine to immigrate to and purchase land in western Mandatory Palestine) were progressively engaged in theft of Arab territory.

Recognizing the fact that neither population would accept being ruled by the other, the Peel Commission further recommended an exchange of populations (by force if necessary) between the proposed Jewish State and the proposed Arab State, whereby Arabs then residing in the proposed Jewish State would relocate (or be forcibly transferred) to the proposed Arab State, and whereby Jews then residing in the proposed Arab State would relocate (or be forcibly transferred) to the proposed Jewish State (see Palestine Royal Commission Report, Chapter XXII (entitled “A Plan of Partition”), Paragraphs 39 - 43).

The Peel Commission Report was adopted by the British Parliament. However, although the principle of partition had been accepted by the Jewish leadership of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine, that principle’s rejection by the Arab leadership thereof (despite the fact that it would have resulted in a huge Arab State occupying both sides of the Jordan River and encompassing approximately 92.4% of original Mandatory Palestine) caused the British government initially to defer the Report’s implementation pending further study, and subsequently to repudiate it.

The “Palestinian” Arab leaders’ rejection of partition and their preference for violence (in order to achieve the immediate cancellation of the Mandate for Palestine and its replacement with an Arab State) guarantied the continuation of the “Great Arab Revolt” for the next 2 years due, in large part, to the support that the jihad was receiving from Nazi Germany. The Nazis, in addition to providing clandestine funding and armaments to the leadership of the jihad, also infiltrated its agents into the western portion of Mandatory Palestine in order to provide tactical support for the jihad.

In response to Arab terrorist attacks against the Jewish population during this period, the Jewish militia known as Hagana (meaning: Defense), precursor to the Israel Defense Forces, eschewed retaliation, preferring instead to strengthen the defensive structures protecting Jewish communities. In contrast, by June 1938, the Jewish militia known as Irgun Tzva’i Leumi (meaning: National Military Organization) embraced retaliation, as -- in light of the persistence of terrorist atrocities more than two years after the beginning of the “Great Arab Revolt” -- it had concluded that passive responses were uselessness in preventing such attacks, and that indiscriminate Arab attacks against Jews could only be effectively countered by indiscriminate Jewish attacks against Arabs. Consequently, after Arab terrorist attacks, the Irgun militia would plant bombs in an Arab marketplace. This happened to marketplaces in Haifa and Jaffa later that Summer, eventually causing hundreds of Arab casualties.

The leader of the “Great Arab Revolt” was former Turkish army officer Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (commonly known as Haj Amin al-Husseini). He had previously been instrumental in instigating both the April 1920 and the August 1929 “Palestinian” Arab pogroms against “Palestinian” Jews. As the British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and head of the Supreme Muslim Council, and as the Arab-appointed Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, al-Husseini was the paramount spiritual and political leader of the Arabs of the western portion of Mandatory Palestine. However, in 1937, after Mandatory authorities sought his arrest on account of his role in planning and implementing the “Great Arab Revolt”, he fled western Mandatory Palestine and eventually reached Nazi Germany, in the interim:

(1) helping to establish several Muslim Nazi battalions in Bosnia and Kosovo (which participated in the brutal deportation of local Jews to various death camps);

(2) assisting in the creation of the short-lived Nazi Arab government in Iraq on April 1, 1941 (which, at that time, had a substantial Jewish population);

(3) employing Nazi propaganda to instigate a two-day pogrom by Iraqi Muslims against Iraqi Jews, commencing on June 1, 1941 (commonly known as the “Farhoud”), and resulting in the massacre of hundreds of Jews, the maiming of thousands of Jews, and the destruction of thousands of Jewish homes and businesses, in replication of Nazi Germany’s two-day pogrom against Jews residing in Germany and Austria, commencing on November 9, 1938 (commonly known as “Kristallnacht”); and

(4) becoming one of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s personal advisors on the annihilation of the Jewish people during the Holocaust; and

(5) during his stay in Nazi Germany, broadcasting Nazi propaganda in Arabic (via Radio Zeissen) to the Middle East, repeatedly declaring, inter alia, that World Jewry was the common enemy of Muslims and Germany.

In recognition of his ongoing services to Nazi Germany, al-Husseini received the rank of SS-Gruppenführer; and Hitler honorifically referred to him as “die arabischen Führer” (“the Arab Leader”). After the War, he was given asylum in Egypt (where he was a co-founder of the League of Arab States, commonly known as the “Arab League”), and then in Lebanon until his death in 1974.

To this Day, al-Husseini remains an inspirational and aspirational hero to “Palestinian” Arabs (including those “Palestinian” Arabs who, due to their Israeli citizenship, are sometimes referred to as Israeli Arabs). For example, on January 4, 2013, during a televised speech given to members of the dominant Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization celebrating the 48th anniversary of the terrorist organization’s founding, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas praised al-Husseini and exhorted his audience to emulate his ideology and conduct. In late February 2014, an Arab student group in Israel, named “Watan” (meaning: “[Arab] Nation”), sponsored a two-day photographic exhibit at Hebrew University in Jerusalem called “Pictures From Across Palestine”, which included several captioned pictures lauding al-Husseini. On April 11, 2018 (being the eve of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day that year), the Palestinian Authority held an anti-Israel conference in its de facto capital city Ramallah dominated by a gigantic banner featuring the likeness of al-Husseini.

Hitler cultivated Muslim and Arab favor. He permitted German Muslims to become and remain Nazi Party members throughout the War. He also declared that the Arab people were “honorary Aryans”.

Moreover, after the War, in recognition of this bond between Nazi Germany and the Arabs, thousands of Nazi war criminals (many of them aided by smuggling routes created and controlled by the Roman Catholic Church in Vatican City) sought and obtained sanctuary in Arab States, replaced their German names with Arabic names, converted to Islam and obtained respected positions in Arab governments. For example, after the War, Egypt sheltered, among other Nazi war criminals:

Hussein Farid (formerly: Aribet Heim, a Nazi medical doctor who tortured and experimented on Jewish prisoners at the Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, and Mauthausen death camps) who became an Egyptian police doctor;

Mahmoud Saleh (formerly: Nazi propagandist Alfred Zingler), who joined the Egyptian Information Ministry;

Omar Amin (formerly: Nazi propagandist Johann von Leers), who joined the Egyptian Information Ministry;

Ali Bin Keshir (formerly: Mauthausen death camp guard Wilhelm Boerner), who joined the Egyptian Interior Ministry and became an advisor to the Palestine Liberation Front; and

El Hussein (formerly: Franz Bartel, assistant Gestapo chief of Katowice, Poland), who joined the Egyptian Information Ministry.

Declassified information from British and German archives confirm the close relationship that developed between Nazi Germany and the “Palestinian” Arabs during the jihad of 1936 - 1939, as coordinated by Nazi Germany’s pre-World War II Embassy and Consulates in western Mandatory Palestine.

Republished below, in full, is an article from ynetnew.com, the English-language website of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, published on May 7, 2006, that summarizes and excerpts this information, as well as reveals the extent to which British policy on Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine was negatively influenced by the growing Nazi-Arab affinity, to wit:

Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’

British National Archives unveil presence of Nazi S.S. agents in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders

By: Yaakov Lappin, ynetnew.com, 05.07.06

Historical documents in Britain’s National Archives in London show that Nazi Germany attempted to ship arms to Palestinian forces in the 1930s.

A British Foreign Office report from 1939 reports of “news of a consignment of arms from Germany, sent via Turkey and addressed to Ibn Saud (king of Saudi Arabia), but really intended for the Palestine insurgents.” Britain’s chief military officer in Mandatory Palestine also noted reports “regarding import of German arms at intervals for some years now.”

British documents from the same period, and German records photographed by an American spy and sent to the British government, said that a number of Nazi agents were sent to Mandatory Palestine, in order to forge alliances with Palestinian leaders, and urge them to reject a partition of the land between the Jewish and Arab populations.

One Nazi agent, Adam Vollhardt, arrived in Palestine in July 1938, and was reported to have gained strong influence with Arab leaders, meeting with Palestinian leaders throughout 1938. Vollhardt held several meetings with leading Arab politicians and told them “that the Palestine question would be settled to the satisfaction of the Arabs within a few weeks,” adding that “it would be fatal to their (Palestinians’) cause if at this juncture they showed any signs of weakness or exhaustion.”

“Germany was interested in the settlement of the (Palestine) question on the basis of the Arabs obtaining their full demands,” Vollhardt was reported to say to Palestinian leaders, according to a report by the British War Office. Vollhardt also assured Arab leaders that “the Germans could continue to support the Palestinian Arab cause by means of propaganda.”

German documents photographed and sent to Whitehall by an American spy revealed that in 1937, German officials had calculated that “Palestine under Arab rule would… become one of the few countries where we could count on a strong sympathy for the new Germany.”

‘Arabs admire our Fuhrer’

“The Palestinian Arabs show on all levels a great sympathy for the new Germany and its Fuhrer, a sympathy whose value is particularly high as it is based on a purely ideological foundation,” a Nazi official in Palestine wrote in a letter to Berlin in 1937. He added: “Most important for the sympathies which Arabs now feel towards Germany is their admiration for our Fuhrer; especially during the unrests, I often had an opportunity to see how far these sympathies extend. When faced with a dangerous behaviour of an Arab mass, when one said that one was German, this was already generally a free pass.”

A second Nazi agent, Dr. Franz Reichart, was reported to be actively working with Palestinian Arabs by the British Criminal Investigation Division “to help coordinate Arab and German propaganda.” Reichart was also head of the German Telegraphic Agency in Jerusalem.

German records show that the Nazis viewed the establishment of a Jewish State with great concern. A 1937 report from German General Consulate in Palestine said: “The formation of a Jewish State… is not in Germany’s interest because a (Jewish) Palestinian state would create additional national power bases for international Jewry such as for example the Vatican State for political Catholicism or Moscow for the Communists. Therefore, there is a German interest in strengthening the Arabs as a counterweight against such possible power growth of the Jews.”

Jewish refugees abandoned

The records also show that the news of increased Nazi-Arab cooperation panicked the British government, and caused it to cancel a plan in 1938 to bring to Palestine 20,000 German Jewish refugees, half of them children, facing danger from the Nazis.

Documents show that after deciding that the move would upset Arab opinion, Britain decided to abandon the Jewish refugees to their fate.

“His Majesty’s Government asked His Majesty’s Representatives in Cairo, Baghdad and Jeddah whether so far as they could judge, feelings in Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia against the admission of, say 5,000 Jewish children for adoption… would be so strong as to lead to a refusal to send representatives to the London discussions. All three replies were strongly against the proposal, which was not proceeded with,” a Foreign Office report said.

“If war were to break out, no trouble that the Jews could occasion us, in Palestine or elsewhere, could weigh for a moment against the importance of winning Muslim opinion to our side,” Britain’s Minister for Coordination of Defence, Lord Chatfield, told the British cabinet in 1939, shortly before Britain reversed its decision to partition its mandate, promising instead all of the land to the Palestinian Arabs.

Although Britain’s decision, in 1938, to curry favor with the belligerent Arab population of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine, as well as with the larger Arab and (non-Arab) Muslim Worlds, by impeding mass Jewish flight from Nazi Germany to the western portion of Mandatory Palestine constituted yet another serious breach of its Mandatory obligations to the Jewish people, such informal ad hoc decision-making did not yet represent a formal and absolute bar to further Jewish immigration.

However, in May 1939, in order to assuage the growing “Palestinian” Arab rage against Britain for having facilitated Jewish immigration to, and Jewish land purchases in, western Mandatory Palestine, and as its official response to the sustained Arab violence of the preceding three years, and in an effort -- largely unsuccessful -- to wean the Arab populations of Mandatory Palestine and the larger Middle East away from their open support of Nazi Germany (as the latter was beginning its conquest of Europe), Britain, with the tacit support of the United States (at the direction of President Franklin Roosevelt), further violated the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine by approving the implementation of an infamous manifesto, commonly known as the “Palestine White Paper of 1939” (also known as the “MacDonald White Paper”).

The Palestine White Paper, while ostensibly asserting fealty to the stated goals of the Mandate, in fact subverted the Mandate's raison d’être by essentially declaring that, no later than 1949, an Arab-dominated state -- the Jewish component of which was to be limited to one third of the population thereof in order to assuage expressed Arab fears regarding eventual Jewish preeminence therein -- would be established in western Mandatory Palestine (i.e., Mandatory Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River) (see Palestine White Paper, Section I, entitled “The Constitution”, paragraph 8; and Section II, entitled “Immigration”, paragraphs 3 & 5).

Specifically, the Palestine White Paper declared that (a) for the period from April 1, 1939 to March 31, 1944 (a period virtually coetaneous with the Holocaust), provided that the economic conditions for Jewish immigration (as determined by the British High Commissioner of Mandatory Palestine after consultations with Jewish and Arab leaders) were favorable, total Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine would be permitted up to an aggregate maximum of 75,000 (comprising a maximum of 10,000 immigrants per year for 5 years, totaling 50,000 immigrants, with the conditional addition of 25,000 refugees for the entire five-year period), subject to the additional proviso that Britain would reduce even this paltry annual “legal” Jewish immigration by the number of non-deportable “illegal” Jewish immigrants, and (b) commencing April 1, 1944, absent the prior consent of the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine, any further Jewish immigration thereto would be absolutely prohibited, to wit:

Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows:

For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits.

In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents.

The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted.

After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.

His Majesty's Government are determined to check illegal immigration, and further preventive measures are being adopted. The numbers of any Jewish illegal immigrants who, despite these measures, may succeed in coming into the country and cannot be deported will be deducted from the yearly quotas.

His Majesty's Government are satisfied that, when the immigration over five years which is now contemplated has taken place, they will not be justified in facilitating, nor will they be under any obligation to facilitate, the further development of the Jewish National Home by immigration regardless of the wishes of the Arab population.

(Palestine White Paper, Section II (entitled “Immigration”), paragraphs 5 - 11)

Moreover, the Palestine White Paper also declared that, henceforth, even “legal” Jewish residents would be severely restricted in their ability to purchase land in western Mandatory Palestine, to wit:

The Administration of Palestine is required, under Article 6 of the Mandate, "while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced," to encourage "close settlement by Jews on the land," and no restriction has been imposed hitherto on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews. The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land. These powers will date from the publication of this statement of policy and the High Commissioner will retain them throughout the transitional period.

(Palestine White Paper, Section III (entitled “Land”), paragraph 1)

In contrast to the Palestine White Paper's restrictions on Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchases, British policy permitted unrestricted Arab immigration to western Mandatory Palestine -- mostly from nearby areas that are presently part of Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon -- and placed no restrictions on their ability to acquire land there.

In order to announce the British government’s new anti-Jewish immigration policy in the most unambiguous way possible, the Palestine White Paper bluntly stated:

. . . and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should not be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

(Palestine White Paper, Section I (entitled “The Constitution”), paragraph 2).

Due to the prior Arab rejection of partition in western Mandatory Palestine (as recommended by the Peel Commission Report of 1937, which would have resulted in (1) a huge Arab State, comprising 70% of western Mandatory Palestine and 92.4% of original Mandatory Palestine, and (2) a tiny Jewish State comprising only 20% of western Mandatory Palestine and only 4.4% of original Mandatory Palestine), Britain was now left with a choice between facilitating and preventing the emergence of a Jewish State -- however miniscule -- in that territory. After considering its global geostrategic interests, Britain chose the latter course, thereby condoning and rewarding Arab intransigence and hatred of Jews. In order to ensure that its strategic choice would actually result in the creation of an Arab State, it was necessary for Britain to implement draconian restrictions on both Jewish immigration to and Jewish land purchases in western Mandatory Palestine.

In addition to the British policy of responding to Arab terrorism by restricting further Jewish land purchases and by instituting a graduated ban on Jewish immigration, the Mandatory authorities, in a further effort to appease the hostile Arab population, and at the behest of the local Muslim religious authorities, also humiliated the Jewish population by hobbling the latter’s prayer services at the Western Wall plaza adjacent to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount by means of such measures as prohibiting the use of chairs and benches for worshippers’ comfort, prohibiting the use of even a portable mechitza (the prayer partition placed between the genders, as required by Jewish tradition), prohibiting “loud” public prayer, and prohibiting the blowing of the shofar (the ram’s horn) during Rosh HaShana (as required by the Torah) and at the end of Yom Kippur services (as required by Jewish tradition).

Meanwhile, commencing in 1940, the fascist government of southern France, commonly known as “Vichy France” (as Occupier of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia) and the fascist government of Italy (as Occupier of Libya), both of which were allied with Nazi Germany during the War, began -- with the indispensable cooperation of local Arab officials and supportive Arab populations -- to systematically strip the Jews of North Africa of their civil rights, livelihoods, assets, and access to public facilities and services (paralleling the dehumanization process which was already well underway in Nazi Germany as well as in those European countries under Nazi occupation or hegemony). However, due to delaying tactics employed by Vichy France’s Governor of Tunisia, this process of dehumanization was not fully implemented in that country until it was occupied by Nazi Germany in 1942. Ultimately, more than 13,000 North African Jews were sent to myriad slave labor camps scattered throughout Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, staffed by Occupation officials and local Arabs, where thousands died of disease and starvation, while others were murdered by camp guards. Moreover, hundreds of Tunisian and Libyan Jews were deported to European slave labor camps. By December 1942, most of North Africa had been conquered by invading Anglo-American forces. Incredibly, the United States (at the direction of President Franklin Roosevelt) chose to leave captured Antisemitic Vichy officials, such as François Darlan and Marcel Peyrouton, in charge of the liberated portions of North Africa. With U.S. knowledge and consent, these former Vichy officials continued to keep North African Jews in slave labor camps on starvation rations. This outrage continued until (due to U.S. media condemnations and protests by U.S. Jewish organizations) the U.S. (at the direction of President Franklin Roosevelt) effected the official closure of these slave labor camps in April 1943 (although some camps continued to operate into the summer months). However, despite the months-long continuation of Nazi policies by the U.S. in liberated North Africa, it is nonetheless undoubtedly true that only the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa, resulting in the capture and defection of Vichy forces and the decimation of the Italo-German army, the survivors of whom finally surrendered to Allied forces in May 1943, saved North Africa’s Jewish populations, at large, from eventually joining their European brethren as wholesale victims of the Holocaust.

And, while the Holocaust decimated the Jewish populations of Christian-dominated Europe and extended its destructive reach to the Jewish populations of Muslim-dominated North Africa, Britain -- in abject contravention of the dictates of Morality and every fiduciary obligation to the Jewish people imposed upon it by the Mandate for Palestine -- ruthlessly implemented its illegal White Paper, this despite the fact that the Council of the League of Nations (whose consent was necessary for any proposed modification to the Mandate, per Article 27 thereof) had refused to approve it. In furtherance thereof, Britain barred tens of thousands of Jewish refugees from the gates of Mandatory Palestine; and it forced them, at the point of a gun, to return to those very lands where only annihilation awaited them.

An infamous example of Britain's Arab-compliant crusade against Holocaust-era Jewish immigration is represented by the Struma Affair which unfolded during Nazi Germany's January 1942 Wannsee Conference. This meeting of the Nazi leadership was convened by Hitler in order to determine and implement the final tactical mechanisms for the planned annihilation of the Jewish people in response to the very public collective refusal of virtually all of the World's other nations, including the United States (at the direction of President Franklin Roosevelt), during the Evian Conference of 1938, held in Evian-les-Bains, France, to accept significant Jewish immigration from the territories then controlled by Nazi Germany. On December 12, 1941, the “MV Struma”, a 96 square meter and 100-year-old barge, packed with almost 800 Jewish refugees, including more than 100 infants and other children, fled Romania for Mandatory Palestine, stopping enroute at Istanbul, Turkey on December 15, 1941. Britain, promptly responding to “Palestinian” Arab pressure, not only publicly declared that the Struma would be barred from entering the waters of Mandatory Palestine, but it also persuaded Turkey to prohibit the Struma's passengers from disembarking at Istanbul, the result being that the barge was eventually towed out to sea without fuel, heating equipment, food or potable water on February 23, 1942. The next day (February 24, 1942), the Struma was destroyed by a torpedo; only one person survived.

It is indeed ironic that from August 1933 (approximately six months after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany) until September 1939 (when Germany invaded Poland, thereby triggering World War II), while Britain increasingly obstructed Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine, Nazi officials worked closely with Zionist representatives, per the arrangement known as the “Transfer Agreement”, in order to assist the Nazis’ unwanted Jewish populations in obtaining entry permits to Mandatory Palestine. Although it may seem counterintuitive, this brief collaboration took place because Nazis and Zionists -- although the former were motivated by Hatred, while the latter were motivated by Love -- nonetheless shared complimentary goals, namely: the Nazis sought to completely rid themselves of their Jewish populations, but lacked destination countries willing to accept them; and the Zionists, fearing for the safety of these Jewish populations if they remained under Nazi rule, sought to relocate them to Mandatory Palestine. Due to the Transfer Agreement, approximately 80,000 Jews were able to emigrate from Nazi Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia (present-day Czechia formerly known as the Czech Republic and Slovakia) to Mandatory Palestine, thereby saving themselves from the approaching Holocaust. It should be noted that, during this same period, Nazi officials also worked closely with anti-Zionist Jewish organizations in order to locate other destination countries willing to accept Jews. However, the commencement of World War II caused the Transfer Agreement to collapse. In light of the collective refusal of virtually all other countries in the World to permit any significant immigration of Jews from Nazi-controlled territories (as exemplified by the Evian Conference of 1938), Nazi Germany changed its pragmatic solution to the “Jewish Problem” from Mass Expulsion to Mass Extermination.

However, it is even more ironic that Britain, which was required by international law to facilitate Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, instead earned the distinction of being the only ruler of the Land to have ever prohibited Jews from gaining entry to any portion thereof.

Britain’s illegal policy regarding the entry of Jews to Mandatory Palestine during the Holocaust was bluntly articulated in a letter dated March 4, 1943 from British Minister to the United States Ronald Campbell to World Zionist Organization President Chaim Weizmann concerning a proposal to permit approximately 70,000 of Romania’s endangered Jews to flee to Mandatory Palestine, as follows:

“His Majesty's Government has no evidence to show whether the Romanian proposal was meant to be taken seriously. But if it was, it was already a piece of blackmail which, if successful, would open up the endless prospect on the part of Germany and her satellites in southeastern Europe of unloading, at a given price, all their unwanted multitudes on overseas countries.”

So it was that, due to the maleficence of Britain, the internationally-sanctioned Jewish national homeland was illegally closed to Jewish immigration during the Jewish people's time of greatest need for sanctuary. And even after Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945, and the enormity of its crimes against the Jewish people was publicly revealed, Britain continued to illegally interdict and intern in primitive detention camps (most of them situated in British-occupied Cyprus) tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors attempting to enter the western portion of Mandatory Palestine. Yet, tens of thousands of other Holocaust survivors, with the assistance of the Hagana militia, managed to circumvent the barricades of British Mandatory authorities.

By the end of 1943, it had become clear that Nazi Germany would eventually be vanquished, but not before millions more Jews would be annihilated as part of its death throes. It had also become clear that Britain, by violating its fiduciary obligations under the Mandate for Palestine and by acting instead as if Mandatory Palestine belonged to Britain, had long-transformed itself from the Trustee of Mandatory Palestine into the Occupier thereof. Consequently, on February 1, 1944, as the White Paper’s Jewish immigration debarment date (March 31, 1944) approached, the Irgun militia formally declared War against the British Occupation of Mandatory Palestine. Predictably, the militia’s asymmetrical war against the Mandatory government had severe consequences for Mandatory Palestine’s civilian Jewish population, as the Mandatory government often retaliated by, inter alia, imposing lengthy curfews on Jewish-populated urban areas; and individual British policemen and British soldiers frequently retaliated by assaulting and sometimes murdering Jewish civilians. Nonetheless, by attacking the instruments of British civil authority over the next 3 years, such as immigration control, tax collection, intelligence, and police facilities, and -- after the termination of World War II -- British military forces and assets, via bombs and frontal assaults, and by executing captured British soldiers in retaliation for the execution of captured Jewish fighters, the Irgun militia eventually convinced Britain that its Occupation of Mandatory Palestine had become untenable.

On April 18, 1946, in the aftermath of World War II, the League of Nations dissolved itself and thereupon transferred all of its assets to the United Nations, its newly-created successor. In February 1947, Britain -- having found itself mired in the midst of a violent Jewish revolt brought about by the repeated betrayal of its Mandatory responsibilities towards the Jewish people -- publicly announced its intentions to (a) completely evacuate its military and administrative personnel from western Mandatory Palestine in phases over the next 18 months (i.e., by August 1948) and (b) submit a formal request to the U.N. that the latter organization assume responsibility for deciding the future of western Mandatory Palestine (which request was subsequently submitted to the U.N. in April 1947). By declaring that it would unilaterally withdraw from western Mandatory Palestine on or before a predetermined deadline, Britain had thereby announced its prospective resignation -- effective on the date of its departure -- as the Trustee of the Trust known as the Mandate for Palestine.

Although Britain’s prospective resignation as the Mandatory Trustee would automatically terminate any remnant of its international authority to further administer the Mandate as of the date of its departure (which Britain eventually determined would be May 15, 1948), its resignation would not -- and could not -- legally terminate the Mandatory Trust (which is the very reason why, approximately 10 months after Britain’s resignation announcement, the U.N. General Assembly itself sought to terminate the Mandate). However, as of its effective date (i.e., its departure date of May 15, 1948), Britain’s resignation as Mandatory Trustee would nonetheless render western Mandatory Palestine without any internationally-approved administrative authority.

This crisis resulted in the passage of United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 (identified as U.N. document A/RES/181(II), entitled “Future government of Palestine”), commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”, which called for the termination of the Mandate for Palestine upon Britain’s departure from western Mandatory Palestine, to wit:

1. The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

(Palestine Partition Plan, Part I, Section A, paragraph 1)

and for the division of its remaining territory -- namely, the western portion thereof, consisting of approximately 22% of original Mandatory Palestine -- into three separate entities:

(1) an independent Jewish State (comprised of 3 small barely-adjoined cantons, constituting less than 12% of original Mandatory Palestine and approximately 53% of western Mandatory Palestine, approximately 60% of which was desert),

(2) an independent Arab State (comprised of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, as well as significant portions of what would later comprise Israel proper, constituting less than 10% of original Mandatory Palestine and approximately 43% of western Mandatory Palestine, the vast majority of which was arable land), and

(3) a U.N.-administered “Special International Regime” (comprised of Jerusalem and certain of its environs, including Bethlehem, constituting less than 1% of original Mandatory Palestine and approximately 4% of western Mandatory Palestine)

-- all of which would, however, be joined together in a supranational economic union in order to subsidize the proposed Arab State.

In legal terminology, the United Nations General Assembly proposed by means of its Palestine Partition Plan an interdependent bilateral contract between the Jewish leadership of the western portion of Mandatory Palestine and the Arab leadership thereof regarding the peaceful division of the western portion of Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and an internationalized Jerusalem region.

Although, under the Charter of the United Nations of June 26, 1945 (per Chapter IV thereof, entitled “The General Assembly”, comprising Articles 10 through 22 thereof), General Assembly resolutions merely constitute the informed recommendations of the international community (and are, consequently, not legally binding upon member States), and although this Resolution actually violated international law, namely, Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine (which article forbade ceding any portion of the territory of the Jewish National Home to a foreign Power, and which article was made binding upon the United Nations per Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, as will be discussed elsewhere in this Essay), the Jewish leadership of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine nevertheless accepted this nonbinding and transgressive Resolution.

However, despite the fact that the Palestine Partition Plan’s implementation would have carved out from original Mandatory Palestine a second Arab State in addition to Transjordan, the Arab leadership (both Muslim and Christian) of western Mandatory Palestine, as well as Transjordan and all of the Arab and (non-Arab) Muslim States which were then members of the U.N. (namely, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen), as well as the Arab League, rejected the Palestine Partition Plan by both declaration and conduct.

In fact, approximately 6 weeks prior to the issuance by the United Nations of its Palestine Partition Plan, in an effort to emphasize the Arab World’s rejection thereof, Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam (more commonly known as “Azzam Pasha”), in his role as Secretary-General of the Arab League, published the following genocidal threat to the Jewish leadership of western Mandatory Palestine:

“Personally, I hope that the Jews do not force us into this War [by declaring the establishment of a Jewish State], because it would be a War of Extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken about like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

(excerpt from an interview with Azzam Pasha in the Egyptian newspaper “Akbar al-Youm”, in an article entitled “A War of Extermination”, published on October 11, 1947)

It is noteworthy that, regarding any contract, plan, or proposal, one party’s refusal to comply therewith or violation thereof legally relieves the other party of its obligation to comply therewith, meaning that the rejection of the Palestine Partition Plan by the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine legally relieved the Jewish leadership thereof of its obligation to comply therewith.

Unsurprisingly, Britain, which -- despite the annihilation wreaked by the Holocaust upon the Jewish people -- had long-devolved from being a proponent to being an opponent of Jewish settlement and self-determination in the biblical Land of Israel, initially opposed the Palestine Partition Plan, because the Plan called for the establishment of a Jewish State (which contradicted its diplomatic stance that all of western Mandatory Palestine should become an Arab State, albeit with a Jewish minority, as set forth in its “Palestine White Paper of 1939”). However, ultimately Britain abstained during the U.N. General Assembly’s vote thereon.

Immediately after the Palestine Partition Plan’s issuance on November 29, 1947, as a result of their rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in any portion of western Mandatory Palestine, local Arab militias drawn from Arab population centers throughout western Mandatory Palestine commenced a sustained jihad against the Jewish communities there with little interference -- and, sometimes, even with overt assistance -- from Britain, representing an exponential increase in the anti-Jewish violence that had periodically swept through the Land since the advent of the Mandate in 1920.

The first post-Partition Plan atrocity occurred on the very next day, November 30, 1947, when local Arab militias attacked two buses at different locations carrying Jewish passengers, in the process murdering 7 Jews (including a woman on the way to her wedding).

In fact, from November 30, 1947 through March 31, 1948, almost 1,000 Jews were murdered by Arab militias who attacked isolated Jewish villages and Jewish neighborhoods of mixed cities, as well as Jewish cars and buses travelling on the highways, regardless of whether they were situated outside or inside of the U.N. Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines. One example of British partisanship, as reported in the December 28, 1947 edition of the “Palestine Post” newspaper (now known as the “Jerusalem Post”), involved an attack by local Arabs against a Jewish convoy travelling through the Negev Desert. After observing the battle for three hours, during which several Jews were killed, British police finally intervened, arresting 40 of the Jewish defenders, and permitting all of the Arab attackers to return to their respective villages.

Commencing in January 1948, hundreds of foreign Arabs and (non-Arab) Muslims began to infiltrate the Land as part of the “Arab Liberation Army” created by the belligerent Arab States, acting through the Arab League, and commanded by ethnic Turk and Libyan national Fawzi el-Kaukji.

Furthermore, in February 1948, in an effort to isolate and starve the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, the Arabs instituted a blockade of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem highway. As Jerusalem was completed encircled by Arab-controlled territory, this blockade severed the only transportation corridor between the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, comprising more than 100,000 Jews (who then constituted more than 60% of Jerusalem’s population), and the Jewish-populated areas of the Mediterranean Sea coastal plain. Moreover, in what can only be described as a siege within a siege, the 2,000 Jews residing in the Jewish neighborhoods of the eastern portion of Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem) were encircled and blockaded by the Arabs of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, so that the Jewish neighborhoods of the eastern portion of Jerusalem were severed from the Jewish neighborhoods of the western portion of Jerusalem. The result of these concentric starvation sieges was that, although Jewish convoys from the Coastal Plain were eventually successful in circumventing and then defeating the Arab siege against the Jewish neighborhoods of western Jerusalem (i.e., the outer siege), they were ultimately unsuccessful in breaking the Arab siege against the Jewish neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem (i.e., the inner siege).

In the context of the Arab-Nazi connection, it is telling that many of the terrorists who were recruited to Mandatory Palestine by the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” were demobilized Muslim Nazi soldiers from Bosnia and Kosovo. Moreover, Fawzi el-Kaukji, the leader of the “Arab Liberation Army”, had been a participant in both the Nazi-financed Arab jihad in western Mandatory Palestine of 1936 - 1939 and the Arab Nazi coup in Iraq of 1941, after which he took refuge in Nazi Germany for the duration of World War II before leading the “Arab Liberation Army” invasion of western Mandatory Palestine in January 1948.

In its report of February 16, 1948 to the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations Palestine Commission expressed its frustration over the forceful Arab rejection of the Palestine Partition Plan via its “First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine” (identified as U.N. document A/AC.21/9) to wit:

C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside [western Mandatory] Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly [i.e., the Palestine Partition Plan] and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.

(Section I, paragraph 3, subparagraph C of the “First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine”)

On March 19, 1948, in reaction to the raging Arab jihad, and mindful of worldwide Arab anger over the United States vote in favor of Partition, the United States Mission to the United Nations, at the direction of the United States Department of State (allegedly without the authorization of President Harry Truman), withdrew U.S. support for the Palestine Partition Plan. As an alternative to Partition, the United States proposed that the creation of a Jewish State be indefinitely postponed and that all of western Mandatory Palestine be placed under a United Nations trusteeship (per Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter), which would be buttressed by the presence of international peacekeeping forces, including units of the Egyptian army. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine adopted this alternative proposal and recommended it to the United Nations Security Council, despite the fact that the proposal represented a complete repudiation of the Mandate for Palestine, and thereby constituted the potential death knell for any realization of the internationally-authorized Jewish National Home. However, the Arabs were confident that they could prevent the creation of a Jewish State by force -- either via the jihad then being waged by“Palestinian” Arab militias and the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” or, failing that, in several months’ time when the impending withdrawal of British Mandatory forces would pave the way for a pan-Arab invasion in aid of that jihad. In light of their belief that they were easily able to conquer and occupy all of western Mandatory Palestine by themselves, there was no reason for them to accept United Nations control over any portion of the Land. Consequently, the Arabs rejected this alternative proposal. Of course, the Jewish leadership of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine rejected it as well; and it so informed the United States and the United Nations.

Meanwhile, in January 1948 -- in response to the ongoing Arab atrocities and in response to British indifference thereto and, at times, even British hostility to the plight of the victimized Jewish population -- the Hagana militia began to change its strategy from purely defensive operations to a mixture of offensive and defensive operations, with the result that it began to counterattack and to capture hostile Arab cities and villages as well as hostile Arab neighborhoods of mixed cities. Eventually, more than 400 Arab villages were razed to the ground, and some mixed cities (such as Tiberias and Safed) became all-Jewish cities, while other mixed cities (such as Haifa) and some all-Arab cities (such as Jaffa, Lod, Ramla, and Acre) became Jewish-majority cities.

For example, in early April 1948, the Arab residents of Tiberias -- a town situated on the western shore of Lake Kinneret (also known as the Sea of Galilee), well within the Palestine Partition Plan’s recommended boundaries for the proposed Jewish State -- launched a frontal assault against the Jewish neighborhoods thereof. Within days, the British Mandatory authorities demanded that the entire Jewish population of Tiberias remove itself therefrom in order restore peace, or be prepared to suffer British shelling in support of the Arab onslaught. Ignoring the British ultimatum, the Jewish defenders, with substantial assistance from the Hagana militia, successfully counterattacked, thereby causing -- instead -- the expulsion, under British military protection, of the entire Arab population of the City.

Moreover, in late April 1948, in response to the incessant and indiscriminate Arab sniper fire from Jaffa into adjacent Tel Aviv that had been ongoing since the issuance of the U.N.’s Palestine Partition Plan (thereby rending normal life in southern Tel Aviv impossible), the Irgun militia counterattacked Jaffa with the objective of conquering and disarming it. During the three-day battle, the British army -- which had made no prior effort to arrest or even disarm Jaffa’s snipers -- supported the Arab city by directing British tank and mortar fire against the Jewish forces in an unsuccessful attempt to thwart the latter’s counterattack.

The Hadassah Hospital convoy massacre represents another example of British failure to protect the Jewish population from the Arab onslaught. In mid-April 1948, after having been assured by British Mandatory authorities that the British army had cleared the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem highway of hostile forces, a 106-person convoy of Jewish doctors, nurses, students and patients traveling to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem was ambushed by local Arab militias without any intervention by British forces. Only 28 Jews survived the massacre.

The blatant hostility of British military forces towards the Jewish communities of western Mandatory Palestine is hardly surprising in light of the Antisemitism exhibited by the Supreme Commander of British military forces in all of Mandatory Palestine (i.e., both cis-Jordania and trans-Jordania) -- General Evelyn Barker. In an April 1947 letter to his mistress Katy Antonius (whose late husband, George Antonius, had been the administrative assistant to Nazi collaborator Haj Amin al-Husseini), Barker declared concerning the Jewish people:

“Yes, I loathe the lot – whether they be Zionists or not. Why should we be afraid of saying we hate them? It’s time this damned race knew what we think of them – loathsome people.”

Just before the onset of the Sabbath on Friday evening May 14, 1948, as British occupation forces were completing their withdrawal from the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine, and as Arabs continued to attack Jewish-populated areas both outside and inside Israel’s Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines -- and in defiance of strong opposition from the United States (at the direction of President Harry Truman), which had been pressuring the Jewish leadership of western Mandatory Palestine to indefinitely postpone Jewish statehood -- the Jewish leadership nonetheless announced the creation of the State of Israel, effective as of midnight May 15, 1948 Israel Time (which was 5:00 pm May 14, 1948 Eastern Time) via its “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel” of May 14, 1948.

The Declaration expressed Israel’s willingness to comply with the U.N.’s Palestine Partition Plan (within which boundaries Jews then constituted a 58% majority of the population), to wit:

The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th of November, 1947; and it will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of the Land of Israel

(Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, Paragraph 13).

However, Israel’s willingness to adhere to the Palestine Partition Plan was predicated upon the expectation that the Arabs (both those residing inside and those residing outside Israel’s Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines) would do the same, to wit:

We appeal -- in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months -- to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

(Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, Paragraphs 15 - 16)

Significantly, nowhere in the Declaration does it state that Israel would deem itself to be legally bound to the boundary lines delineated in the Palestine Partition Plan if the Arabs violated those boundary lines. And, in fact, the same Jewish leadership which issued the Declaration rightly refused to reaccept those boundary lines after the Arabs violated those boundary lines in a war of genocide against the Jewish State -- which Israel has denominated as its “War of Independence”.

On the same day, due to a raging domestic debate in the United States regarding the geopolitical wisdom of establishing diplomatic relations with a State that was not expected to survive more than a few days, and being unwilling to fully repudiate its prior opposition to immediate Jewish statehood, the U.S. (at the direction of President Harry Truman) hedged its bets by proclaiming only its de facto recognition of the State of Israel (meaning, that the U.S. recognized only Israel’s tentative and provisional control over territory and population). This diplomatic mechanism was employed, so that if Israel were to be annihilated, then the U.S. would be able to credibly assert to the Islamic World that, by withholding its de jure recognition from Israel, it had refused to bestow its official imprimatur on Jewish statehood. The extension, however cynical, of de facto recognition was nonetheless significant, as the U.S. was the first country to accord Israel any form of diplomatic recognition. The U.S. did not extend its de jure recognition to Israel until January 31, 1949, when it was indisputable that Israel had survived the pan-Arab attempt to annihilate it.

In contrast, the Soviet Union (a 15-province empire formally known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly referred to as the U.S.S.R., whose dominant component was Russia, now formally known as the Russian Federation) had extended its de jure recognition to Israel much earlier -- on May 17, 1948 -- the first country to do so. Consequently, the Soviet Union appointed its first ambassador to Israel on June 27, 1948, while the United States did not appoint its first ambassador to Israel until March 18, 1949 -- almost nine months after the appointment of the first Soviet ambassador. Moreover, while the U.S. had refused to sell to Israel the military equipment necessary to defend itself during this War, the Soviet Union allowed its tributary state Czechoslovakia (present-day Czechia and Slovakia) to sell such equipment to Israel.

Britain determined that its prior abstention on the Palestine Partition Plan was insufficient to secure its geostrategic and economic interests in the Middle East. Consequently, months before its departure from western Mandatory Palestine, British intelligence officers and diplomats embarked upon a covert campaign to convince the Arab States surrounding Israel to mount a coordinated invasion of the Jewish State, with promises of British military and logistical aid for the pan-Arab effort.

As anticipated, on May 15, 1948, the local “Palestinian” Arab militias and foreign infiltrators who had been conducting a jihad against the Jewish communities in the western portion of Mandatory Palestine since the issuance of the Palestine Partition Plan were joined by the invading armies of seven Arab countries (namely, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen), which aggregation of forces attempted to annihilate the Jewish State within its extremely-nonviable Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines.

In light of the foregoing history, it is indisputable that the “Palestinian” Arabs and their external allies, in addition to being accomplices to the Holocaust, sought to complete in the Land of Israel the very annihilation that Nazi Germany had commenced in Europe and North Africa.

Many of the Transjordanian and Egyptian forces which attacked the renascent Jewish State were trained and led by British officers. For example, during its invasion of Israel, the Transjordanian army was led Lieutenant-General John Bagot Glubb (commonly known as “Glubb Pasha”). Due to this British assistance, the Egyptian air force was able to bomb Tel Aviv and other Jewish cities during War. Moreover, Britain attempted to advantage its Arab allies by transferring possession of British forts to them even prior to the pan-Arab invasion of Israel. For example, on May 12, 1948, Mandatory authorities transferred possession of the British police fort in the Arab-populated town of Iraq Suwaydan (located east of Ashkelon) to the Egyptian army.

In addition, while Britain -- a close ally of the United States -- had immediately imposed an arms embargo against Israel, it freely provided Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt with the military equipment and supplies that these countries required in order to prosecute their portion of the War of Annihilation against Israel.

However, the United States (at the direction of President Harry Truman), disingenuously declaring itself to be “neutral”, imposed an arms embargo against all States participating in the War, including, of course, the State being targeted for annihilation -- Israel. The refusal of the U.S. to provide Israel with any military equipment to withstand the pan-Arab onslaught, together with its prior withdrawal of support for the Palestine Partition Plan and its refusal to extend de jure diplomatic recognition to the Jewish State, was intended to preserve U.S. geostrategic interests in the Arab World in the event that Israel was annihilated. In this event, the U.S. would be able to dismiss its former extension of de facto diplomatic recognition to Israel as necessitated by U.S. domestic politics rather than as motivated by any genuine support for the resurrection of a Jewish commonwealth in the midst of the Arab World.

Meanwhile, in June 1948, shortly after the commencement of Israel’s War of Independence, the Soviet Union (whose forces, since the end of World War II, had been occupying the eastern zone of defeated Nazi Germany, except for the western portion of the City of Berlin, then known as “West Berlin”, which was connected to the American-British-French-occupied western zone of Germany by a single highway traversing the Soviet-occupied eastern zone of Germany) commenced a blockade of the one highway that led to encircled West Berlin, which had been the western half of the unrepentant capital of Nazi Germany a scant three years earlier. In a bitter revelation of priorities unsullied by Morality or Irony, the “neutral” United States (at the direction of President Harry Truman) -- which had earlier refused to take any action whatsoever to aid Israel in breaking the Arab blockade of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem highway which had, only five months earlier, effected a starvation siege against the encircled Jewish-populated neighborhoods of Jerusalem -- nonetheless promptly spearheaded a massive airlift, lasting almost a year (from the end of June 1948 to mid-May 1949) and costing the lives of 31 American pilots, to protect the relative freedom and prosperity of the former Nazi citizens of West Berlin (who, unlike the Jews of Jerusalem, were not in danger of being annihilated if they were to be conquered by their enemies).

As a result of their respective participations in the invasion of the Jewish National Home, Iraq captured Samaria (possession of which it transferred to Transjordan), and Transjordan captured Judea and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (including the Old City thereof which hosts the Temple Mount, site of the Jewish people’s two biblical Temples, and the Temple Mount’s Western Wall), while Egypt captured Gaza. Yet, in the process of repelling this pan-Arab onslaught, Israel (with a population of only 650,000 Jews, approximately half of them Holocaust survivors), whose military forces were augmented by some 3,500 foreign volunteers (comprised of both Jews and Christians from 43 countries), was able to expand itself beyond its Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines, thereby increasing its sovereignty over original Mandatory Palestine from approximately 12% thereof to approximately 17% thereof -- and its sovereignty over western Mandatory Palestine from approximately 53% thereof to approximately 77% thereof. Israel also captured portions of southern Lebanon (until the Litani River) and northeastern Sinai (in the vicinity of Gaza); but it later withdrew from these areas as a result of international pressure (including Britain’s threat to militarily intervene on behalf of Egypt) and the prospect of ceasefire negotiations with its Arab adversaries.

In legal terminology, despite Israel’s declaration of statehood within its U.N.-demarcated Partition Plan boundary lines, the Arab leadership of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine (with the substantial assistance of its many allies, including Britain) repudiated the existence of any implied contract with the Jewish leadership thereof for the peaceful division of the Jewish National Home between themselves in accordance with those boundary lines, thereby absolving the Jewish leadership from any legal obligation to comply with the repudiated Partition Plan, including that Plan’s boundary lines.

Consequently, as the Palestine Partition Plan was violently repudiated by the entire Arab World, including the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine, the preexisting rights granted to the Jewish people by the Mandate for Palestine were not legally terminated by the Partition Plan. However, the earlier creation by Britain, as Mandatory, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 (pursuant to the implicit authority of Article 25 of the Mandate) and the subsequent establishment, by the resident Jewish population thereof, of the State of Israel in 1948 (pursuant to the raison d’être of the Mandate) did legally remove those newly-independent areas from the Mandate's ambit, thereafter leaving only the districts of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza, then illegally-occupied by Transjordan and Egypt (as well as the Golan Heights, then illegally-occupied by Syria) still legally subject to the preexisting rights granted to the Jewish people by the Mandate.

Unsurprisingly, although Jordan’s subsequent annexation of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1950 was recognized only by Britain and Iraq, neither the United Nations nor any State threatened to impose diplomatic or economic sanctions against Jordan for that illegal act -- let alone for its earlier violation of the Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines. Moreover, the United States (at the direction of President Harry Truman), by refraining from publicly stating its own position on Jordan’s illegal annexation of the “West Bank”, thereby tacitly supported it. In fact, the U.S. and nine other States (i.e., Belgium, Greece, Turkey, France, Britain, Vatican City, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) thereafter continued to maintain Consulates in the Jordanian-occupied eastern portion of Jerusalem, thereby signaling their de-facto recognition of Jordan’s illegal annexation of the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

However, despite the fact that Israel’s territorial gains in its War of Independence constituted Israel’s lawful reacquisition of historically-Jewish territory, which was allocated to the Jewish people by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (which was made binding upon the U.N. via Article 80 of the U.N. Charter), the international community (including the United States at the direction of President Harry Truman) labeled all of this reacquired Jewish territory, including the western portion of Jerusalem, as “occupied territory” from which Israel was required to withdraw -- without demanding that either Egypt or Transjordan withdraw from any of the historically-Jewish territory that they had occupied during the same War.

After the cessation of fighting, the “United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine”, comprising the United States, France and Turkey, convened an international “peace conference”, which was held in Lausanne, Switzerland in April 1949 and September 1949 (commonly known as the “Lausanne Conference of 1949”). In addition to the Commission members, Israel and Arab belligerents Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and the Arab Higher Committee (representing Arabs who had departed Israel before and during the War) attended the Conference. However, instead of acting as neutral mediators between the parties, the Commission members (including the United States at the direction of President Harry Truman) unanimously asserted, in cooperation with the Arab belligerents, that:

(a) Israel must withdraw to its Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines; or, if Arab consent were forthcoming, Israel must cede to one or more of the belligerent Arab States an amount of territory inside its Partition Plan boundary lines that was equal in size to the territory outside its Partition Plan boundary lines the Israel desired to retain; and

(b) Israel must permit the repatriation to Israel of all Arab departees or compensate them for their property losses, at each departee’s option.

In the context of the repudiated Palestine Partition Plan of 1947, by the end of the War, the States of Israel, Egypt and Transjordan were all in possession of historically-Jewish land that had been allocated by the Partition Plan to a new Arab State. However, in the first of many diplomatic outrages perpetuated by the U.N. system against the Jewish State, the U.N. Conciliation Commission for Palestine accused only Israel of illegally occupying territory beyond its borders. This accusation was predicated upon the absurd notion that the Jewish State (as the successor to the Jewish leadership of western Mandatory Palestine) remained legally bound to the U.N.’s Palestine Partition Plan (including its boundary lines), despite the fact that the Partition Plan (including its boundary lines) had been both rejected and violated by the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine.

With respect to the boundary line demand issued by the U.N. Conciliation Commission for Palestine, it is noteworthy that the same Arab States and “Palestinian” Arab leadership which had violently rejected the 1947 Partition Plan boundary lines as Israel’s lawful borders suddenly agreed -- after their failed attempt to annihilate the Jewish State -- to those very same boundary lines; and they risibly demanded that, in the absence of agreed land exchanges, Israel must reaccept those extremely-nonviable 1947 Partition Plan boundary lines as its lawful borders in lieu of the more favorable 1949 armistice demarcation lines.

However, assuming arguendo the validity of the notion that Israel remains legally bound to any contract, plan, or proposal which it (or its predecessor) had offered or accepted, but which its Arab adversaries had rejected or violated, then Israel (as the successor to the Jewish leadership of western Mandatory Palestine) also remains legally bound to the extremely less generous boundary lines that were delineated in the Peel Commission Report of 1937, which the Jewish leadership of western Mandatory Palestine accepted, but which the Arab leadership thereof rejected -- thereby establishing a miniscule Jewish State comprising approximately 20% of western Mandatory Palestine and approximately 4.4% of original Mandatory Palestine. However, this claim has never been made, because it is facially absurd. Yet, it is no more absurd than the claim that Israel remains legally bound to the Arab-rejected-and-violated 1947 Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines or the Arab-violated 1949 armistice demarcation lines.

Moreover, the foregoing notion, if accepted as being legally valid, would allow the leadership of the “Palestinian” Arabs to:

(1) reject a peace proposal offered by Israel,

(2) with the assistance of allied States, initiate a genocidal war against Israel, and

(3) if the “Palestinians” lost that war, rightfully demand that Israel must re-adhere to that rejected peace proposal.

Obviously, no State would ever accept the absurd notion that it remained legally bound to a contract, plan, or proposal, which it had offered or accepted, but which its adversary had rejected or violated. This is because, pursuant to the law of contracts (as well as the law of common sense):

(a) an offer by one party that is rejected by the other party is immediately deemed, by reason of that rejection, to have been automatically withdrawn, and

(b) when one party violates a contract, the other party is no longer bound by its provisions.

It is also noteworthy that the same international community that had once sanctified the 1947 Partition Plan boundary lines (even after the Arabs had violated those lines in 1948), presently (in disregard of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922, U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967, U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 338 of 1973, the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979, and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994) sanctifies the 1949 armistice demarcation lines (even after the Arabs continuously violated those lines during the two decades prior to 1967) -- without explaining why the breached armistice demarcation lines of 1949 are any more sacrosanct than were the breached Partition Plan boundary lines of 1947. In this way, the international community has always sought to reward failed Arab aggression and to punish successful Jewish defense.

With respect to the repatriation demand issued by the U.N. Conciliation Commission for Palestine, as Israel’s postwar population comprised approximately 644,000 Jews and approximately 150,000 Arabs, the repatriation of approximately 600,000 hostile Arabs to Israel would have converted Israel from a Jewish-majority State into an Arab-majority State.

In summary, the hosts of this very first Arab-Israeli “peace conference” demanded that the Jewish State accept territorial and demographic demands that would have quickly ensured its violent destruction.

However, despite threats from the United States (at the direction of President Harry Truman) that there would be serious damage to U.S.-Israel bilateral relations if Israel did not accept the Commission’s territorial and demographic demands, Israel prudently rejected the allegation that it was illegally occupying such reacquired places in the Land of Israel as:

the western portion of Jerusalem,

the bulk of the Galilee region,

Nahariya,

Acre,

Nazareth,

Jaffa (which is now part of Tel Aviv),

Lod (which hosts Ben Gurion International Airport),

Ramla,

Beersheba,

Ashdod, and

Ashkelon.

Accordingly, Israel refused to withdraw from these places or from any other reacquired territory situated between the U.N.’s Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines of 1947 and the armistice demarcation lines of 1949. Moreover, Israel correctly placed the blame for the Arab refugee problem on local Arab belligerents (comprising both Muslims and Christians), the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” (comprising both Arabs and non-Arabs), and the surrounding Arab States, all of which had initiated a War of Annihilation against the renascent Jewish Commonwealth. Consequently, Israel not only refused to permit the repatriation of the departees or to compensate them for their property losses, but it demanded that they be permanently resettled in those Arab States where they then resided.

After the failure of this “peace conference”, in a belated concession to the indisputable fact that the pan-Arab rejection of the Palestine Partition Plan had relieved Israel of any legal obligation to accept the extremely nonviable Partition Plan boundary lines, the U.N. system eventually ceased asserting that Israel must withdraw to those boundary lines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the international community (including the United States) refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the western portion of Jerusalem, because that area had been allocated by the defunct Palestine Partition Plan to the U.N.’s “Special International Regime” (per U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Part III). Consequently, the international community (including the United States) continued to view the western portion of Jerusalem as being illegally occupied by Israel. However, in an early act of hypocrisy regarding Israel and its Arab adversaries, the international community (including the United States) adopted a neutral attitude towards Jordan’s illegal possession of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, even as the international community (including the United States) accorded official recognition to Jordan’s illegal possession of Bethlehem -- despite the fact that both of those areas had also been allocated by the defunct Palestine Partition Plan to the U.N.’s “Special International Regime”.

The World’s consistent hostility towards the existence and survival of Israel from 1949 (at the conclusion of its War of Independence) to 1967 (at the conclusion of its Six Day War) demonstrates that worldwide hostility to the Jewish State did not begin with Israel’s reacquisition of Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in June 1967. Emblematic of this hostility was the widespread belief that the Jewish State (then existing exclusively within its former armistice demarcation lines of 1949) should never have been established. This belief was unabashedly expressed on May 10, 1962 -- more than five years prior to the Six Day War -- by the student membership of Britain’s prestigious Oxford Union Society (more commonly known as the “Oxford Union”), which debated and overwhelmingly approved the following proposition:

“That the creation of the State of Israel was one of the mistakes of this Century”

From the issuance of the 1947 Palestine Partition Plan through the execution of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, approximately 600,000 Arabs -- constituting approximately 80% of the mostly-hostile Arab population residing upon the territory that would become pre-1967 Israel -- departed therefrom.

This Arab departure occurred for four reasons, in descending order of prevalence:

(a) Arab Greed, i.e., the voluntary strategic departure by local Arabs spurred by the frequent public exhortations from both local and foreign Arab leaders that victory over the Jews would be swift, and that the subsequent repatriation of the departing Arabs to “Palestine” and the repatriated Arabs’ consequent increase in wealth (due to their expected confiscation of Jewish lands, buildings, businesses, money and other assets) were assured;

(b) Arab Fear, i.e., the panicked flight by local Arabs to the surrounding enemy States (or to territories, such as Gaza and the “West Bank”, then illegally occupied by those enemy States), which was spurred by:

(1) the urgent need to evacuate combat zones created by the pan-Arab invasion of western Mandatory Palestine and/or

(2) a mistaken belief that the Jews intended to massacre local Arabs in revenge for:

(i) the serial massacres of Jews during the prior decades by local Arabs, and

(ii) the present participation by local Arabs in the pan-Arab attempt to annihilate the Jewish communities of western Mandatory Palestine;

(c) Arab Belligerence, i.e., the expulsion of local Arabs to the surrounding enemy States (or to territories, such as Gaza and the “West Bank”, then illegally occupied by those enemy States) as a result of their active participation in or other support rendered to the pan-Arab attempt to annihilate the Jewish communities of western Mandatory Palestine; and

(d) Normative Arab Emigration, i.e., routine emigration of local Arabs from the Land, triggered by economic distress or family circumstances.

However, anti-Israel polemicists dispute the foregoing explanation for the wartime departure of Arabs from Israel proper, and instead habitually assert that such departure was caused exclusively by a mass expulsion of Arabs therefrom, which constituted “ethnic cleansing”. Although unwilling to assign any blame for the departure to the decisions made by their own leadership, only a 43% minority of “Palestinian” Arabs residing in Gaza and the “West Bank” (a substantial portion of whom are descendants of those departees) agree with these polemicists, according to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s Public Opinion Poll no. 88, published June 2023.

That poll stated:

Under the section entitled “1) 75 years after the Nakba”:

“We asked about the main reasons for the flight of refugees from their homes in 1948: the largest percentage (43%) said it was the mass displacement by armed Zionist forces; a similar percentage (40%) said it was fear of massacres; and 15% said it was a desire to seek safer places.”

However, the remaining 150,000 Arabs residing within the State of Israel (who, while generally hostile to the creation of the Jewish State, did not actively participate in or otherwise provide support for the War to destroy it) were not only permitted to remain within the State but were granted full citizenship rights therein (after being subjected to military rule until December 1966), including national voting rights, in addition to which they were granted a collective exemption from compulsory military service therein.

The fact that Israel permitted such a large number of Arabs to remain and to become citizens negates the claim that the departure of most of the Arab population constituted ethnic cleansing rather than the exodus of hostile forces. For, nothing prevented Israel -- had it so desired -- from removing 100% of its Arab population during that chaotic era.

Moreover, the fact that the Arab population of Israel proper has increased more than ten times since 1949 also proves that Israel is not ethnically cleansing -- let alone perpetuating genocide against -- its Arab citizens.

Nevertheless, despite the benefits conferred upon them by virtue of their citizenship in a liberal democracy, a large portion of Israel’s Arab citizenry (representing the irredentist rump of a defeated supranational enemy) together with the “Palestinian” Arab diaspora, has chosen to annually observe May 15, not as “Yom HaAtzma’ut” (meaning: “The Day of Independence”, although, due to differences between the Gregorian and Hebrew calendars, Israel’s annual celebration of its Independence coincides with May 15 only occasionally), but rather as “Youm een-Nakba” (meaning: “The Day of Catastrophe”), which the Arabs of Israel, as well as the Arabs of the “Palestinian” Arab diaspora, actually observe twice each year: officially on May 15, being the Gregorian calendar date upon which Israel became an independent State and unofficially on 5 Iyar, being the Hebrew calendar date upon which Israel annually celebrates its Independence. By annually mourning the pan-Arab failure to annihilate Israel in 1948, the Arabs declare themselves kindred to those revanchist and irredentist Germans who annually mourn genocidal Nazi Germany’s defeat in 1945. Moreover, although Arab spokesmen, in addressing a Western audience, habitually assert that their annual commemoration of the “Nakba” is not intended either to mourn their historic failure to destroy the State of Israel on the day of its rebirth or to sustain their dream of destroying it in the future, but only to mourn the displacement of “Palestinians” from territory that became the State of Israel in 1948, the very choice of its official commemoration date refutes this assertion. As the earliest “Palestinian” displacement purportedly occurred in January 1948, and as the latest “Palestinian” displacement purportedly occurred in March 1949, this raises the obvious question as to why the official “Nakba” commemoration date represents the middle (i.e., May 15, 1948), rather than the beginning or the end, of this displacement period.

Furthermore, if the purpose of the annual “Nakba” commemoration is actually to mourn the displacement of “Palestinians” during this period, then the obvious mid-period date for the commemoration would have been April 9, because on April 9, 1948 Jewish forces from the Irgun militia and the smaller Lehi militia attacked the hostile Arab village of Deir Yassin (which was located approximately 5 kilometers, being approximately 3 miles, west of Jerusalem), in the process razing most of the village buildings and expelling the surviving Arab combatants. Residents of Deir Yassin had continuously participated in attacks against Jews during the prior 20 years. In fact, on April 2, 1948, the village hosted snipers shooting at the nearby Jewish communities of Beit Hakerem and Yafeh Nof. One week later, on April 9, 1948, Jewish forces from the Irgun militia and the Lehi militia surrounded the village, and opened an escape corridor through which approximately 70% of the villagers exited. The remaining 30% were heavily armed and barricaded themselves in buildings (including residential buildings also hosting noncombatants) throughout the village, resulting in many casualties among both Jews and Arabs. Approximately 100 Arabs (comprising combatants as well as noncombatants being used as human shields) were killed during the battle; and a few Arab prisoners were executed after their capture. However, approximately 90% of the village defenders survived the battle, were taken prisoner and were then expelled to Arab-populated neighborhoods of nearby Jerusalem. Immediately thereafter, leaders of the rival Hagana militia, assisted by supportive Jewish media (e.g., the Palestine Post, now known as the Jerusalem Post), began to spread false allegations of rape, dismemberment, disembowelment and massacre at Deir Yassin in order to demonize Menachem Begin (leader of the rival Irgun militia) and Yitzchak Shamir (leader of the rival Lehi militia), both of whom subsequently became Prime Ministers of the Jewish State. These allegations were then uncritically repeated by Arab media in order to rally Arab forces for revenge attacks against Jews. Instead, allegations of Jews doing to Arabs precisely what the latter had been doing to the former during the prior 20 years so frightened the local Arab population that the Deir Yassin “massacre” triggered panicked, pivotal and accelerated large-scale Arab flight from western Mandatory Palestine. For, while approximately 60,000 Arabs had fled western Mandatory Palestine before the Deir Yassin “massacre”, approximately 350,000 Arabs fled therefrom in the five weeks thereafter. Yet, despite the cruciality of the Deir Yassin “massacre” to the displacement of “Palestinians” during this period, the “Palestinian” leadership did not choose the date of its destruction (i.e., April 9) to commemorate the “Nakba”.

Instead, the “Palestinian” leadership chose May 15, despite the fact that, with respect to the displacement of “Palestinians” during this period, nothing noteworthy happened on May 15, 1948. However, with respect to the exercise of the self-determination of the Jewish people, two noteworthy events happened on that very date, the first being Israel’s official reemergence as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and the second being the pan-Arab invasion of Israel, with the stated objective of annihilating it. For the “Palestinians”, the choice of May 15 to officially commemorate their self-inflicted “Nakba” (and, whenever Israel celebrates its Independence on a different date, the choice of that additional date to unofficially commemorate their self-inflicted “Nakba”) has nothing to do with mourning their displacement during this period and everything to do with mourning the resurrection of the Jewish nation-state as well as the failure of their (and their external allies’) first attempt to destroy that State. Alternatively stated, by holding well-publicized “Nakba” observances, not only on May 15, but also on any different date upon which Israel celebrates its Independence, the “Palestinians” seek to delegitimize Israel’s existence ab initio. Moreover, it seems that the existence of a “Nakba Day” is actually superfluous -- or, at least, overkill -- in light of the U.N.-sponsored “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” (which is observed annually on November 29, in lamentation over the issuance of the U.N.'s Palestine Partition Plan on that very date in 1947, and in sympathetic commemoration of the rejection by the recognized leadership of the Arabs of western Mandatory Palestine of the Plan's recommendation for the creation of a Jewish State alongside an Arab State therein). This annual solidarity-fest already serves as a reliable and well-funded international vehicle for bemoaning the self-inflicted “Nakba” that befell the “Palestinian” Arabs when the Jewish nation-state was reestablished in the biblical Land of Israel.

In fact, the United Nations has become so invested in delegitimizing Israel’s reestablishment that, on November 20, 2022, it issued U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/77/23, entitled “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat”, which resolution, inter alia, established 2023 -- Israel’s 75^th birthday -- as a commemoration of the 75^th anniversary of the “Nakba”. The Resolution stated, in part, as follows:

6. Further requests the Division [i.e., the U.N.’s Division for Palestinian Rights] to dedicate its activities in 2023 to the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Nakba, including by organizing a high-level event at the General Assembly Hall on 15 May 2023 and through the dissemination of relevant archives and testimonies;

(Resolution, operative paragraph 6)

It is lamentable, but unsurprising, that the international community (including the Arab World) refuses to acknowledge that, but for the Arabs’ rejection of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 (commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”) and their consequent attempt to annihilate the Jewish communities of western Mandatory Palestine (both before and after Israel’s reestablishment), there would have been no War of Independence, no large-scale departure of Arabs from Israel (either before or after Israel’s reestablishment) and no destruction of their villages. Consequently, there would have been no “Nakba” (whether self-inflicted or otherwise).

Conversely, in the Jewish State’s successful effort to survive this first pan-Arab onslaught, the resident Druze (descendants of Egyptian Arabs who deviated from the Shiite branch of Islam approximately 1,000 years ago), the resident Circassians (an Eastern European ethnicity originating from Circassia, located in the northwestern region of the Caucasus Mountains of present-day Russia, who follow the Sunni branch of Islam), and a small number of resident Arabs (mostly Bedouins, who follow the Sunni branch of Islam) openly allied themselves with the resident Jews thereof, with the result that the Druze citizens and the Circassian citizens of the State of Israel were made subject to the same compulsory military service as were the Jewish citizens thereof, while the Bedouins were accepted into military service on a volunteer basis.

Both prior to and in the aftermath of their unsuccessful effort to destroy Israel, the Arab States eventually expelled more than 820,000 of their Jewish citizens, in many Arab countries constituting virtually the entirety of their Jewish populations (e.g., 240,000 from Morocco; 140,000 from Algeria; 105,000 from Tunisia; 38,000 from Libya; 70,000 from Egypt; 5,000 from Lebanon; 25,000 from Syria; 135,000 from Iraq; 55,000 from former North Yemen; and 8,000 from former South Yemen). Approximately 600,000 of them fled to, and were accepted as citizens of, Israel.

Yet, despite Israel’s territorial gains during its War of Independence, the Jewish State was, nonetheless, a tenuous creation, being a mere 18 kilometers (approximately 11 miles) wide from the western edge of the coastal city of Tel Aviv (i.e., at the Mediterranean Sea), and a miniscule 15 kilometers (approximately 9 miles) wide at its narrowest point from the western edge of the coastal city of Netanya (i.e., at the Mediterranean Sea), with Transjordan controlling the mountainous spine of Samaria and thereby dominating Israel’s sole international airport (being only 5 kilometers -- approximately 3 miles -- from Transjordanian-occupied territory) as well as the Jewish cities of the Coastal Plain (chief among them, Tel Aviv), with the Transjordanian army encircling the Jewish-controlled western portion of Jerusalem (and its environs) on three sides, and fully encircling the Jewish-controlled Mount Scopus located in the eastern portion of Jerusalem, with that same Arab army controlling a territorial salient at Latrun overlooking, and consequently easily capable of re-blockading, the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem highway (this being, at that time, the sole road linking the western portion of Jerusalem with the remainder of Israel), with the Syrian army stationed on the peaks of the mountains comprising the Golan Heights which dominate the entire Upper Galilee region of Israel, including Israel’s largest body of fresh water, Lake Kinneret (which constitutes 40% of the Jewish State’s fresh water supply), and with Arab warplanes being able to reach Tel Aviv within one minute after leaving Transjordanian-controlled air space, thereby setting the stage for the next pan-Arab onslaught that would be launched against Israel nearly two decades later, namely, the 1967 Six Day War. In fact, as its narrowest, Israel was narrower than Washington, D.C. from its northwest border to its southeast border.

Meanwhile, in the process of attempting to conquer and destroy the Jewish National Home, the invading Arab armies, joining local “Palestinian” Arab militias and the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army”, destroyed all of the extant Jewish communities in the territory that they occupied -- both those which were created under the authority of the Mandate (such as the four “Gush Etzion” villages in Judea, the Kfar Darom and Nitzanim villages in Gaza, the Atarot and Neve Yaakov villages in the Jerusalem area and the Bet HaArava village in the Dead Sea area) and those which had existed from ancient times (such as the ancient Jewish neighborhoods situated in the eastern portion of Jerusalem which now thereby joined the ancient Jewish neighborhoods of Hebron as well as the Jewish neighborhoods of other Arab-dominated cities which had been destroyed almost two decades earlier); and these aggressors massacred or expelled virtually all of the Jewish inhabitants thereof, with some survivors becoming prisoners of war. Moreover, not being content with having extirpated the entire Jewish population from the newly-Arab-occupied Old City of Jerusalem, the victorious Arabs also desecrated and razed all 58 synagogues in the Old City and vandalized 75% of the Jewish gravestones on the nearby ancient Mount of Olives cemetery.

Furthermore, even prior to commencement of the pan-Arab invasion on May 15, 1948, local Arab militias and mobs, with the assistance of the “Arab Liberation Army”, were able to capture and destroy 17 Jewish villages within Israel’s Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines of 1947, in the process mostly massacring (rather than imprisoning or expelling) their inhabitants.

Consequently, during the hostilities of 1948 - 1949, more than 10,000 Jews of western Mandatory Palestine (who had been residing in areas conquered by Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, the “Arab Liberation Army”, and local “Palestinian” Arab militias) were expelled from their homes, thereby becoming refugees.

Moreover, while the U.N. system, scores of non-governmental organizations (which are known as “NGOs” and alternatively known as “civil society”), international “human rights” organizations, and executive officials and legislators throughout the World (including some members of the U.S. Congress) habitually excoriate Israel for the 1948 - 1949 departure of large numbers of Arabs from Israel proper, none of them have ever excoriated Egypt, Jordan (known as Transjordan in 1948), Iraq or the “Palestinian” Arabs for their respective roles in destroying Jewish villages and Jewish neighborhoods of mixed cities in former western Mandatory Palestine, in the process mostly massacring its inhabitants and expelling its survivors during that same period. Alternatively stated, the international community demonizes Israel for the self-inflicted Arab “Nakba”, even as it willfully ignores the Jewish “Nakba” perpetrated by the Egyptian, Transjordanian, and Iraqi armies, by the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army”, and by local “Palestinian” Arab militias and mobs in former western Mandatory Palestine.

The foregoing raises an important question. Assuming arguendo, as claimed by many anti-Israel polemicists, that both before and after the reestablishment of Israel, its Jewish leadership implemented a plan to ethnically cleanse all Arabs from the areas of western Mandatory Palestine that it controlled (although, for unknown reasons, that leadership failed to implement that alleged expulsion plan with respect to the final 20% of the Arab population under its control), that would mean that the Jewish leadership of western Mandatory Palestine partially did to the Arab population under its control what the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine actually did to the Jewish population under its control. Alternatively stated, that would mean that Jews and Arabs ethnically cleansed each other -- with the Jews being more numerically successful, i.e., approximately 600,000 Arabs under Jewish control being expelled vs approximately 10,000 Jews under Arab control being expelled, but with the Arabs being more proportionately successful, i.e., 100% of Jews under Arab control being expelled vs. 80% of Arabs under Jewish control being expelled. So, assuming arguendo, that mutual ethnic cleansing took place during 1948 - 1949, why does such ethnic cleansing render “Palestinian” Jews so worthy of condemnation, but render “Palestinian” Arabs so unworthy of condemnation?

Accompanying much of the World’s condemnation of Israel for allegedly perpetrating the Arab “Nakba” is the corollary claim that the Jewish State was created via the large-scale confiscation -- constituting wholesale theft -- of land owned by “Palestinian” Arabs. This claim distorts the history of land acquisition by “Palestinian” Jews in former western Mandatory Palestine, as by the time of the 1949 Armistice in Israel’s War of Independence, the State of Israel comprised -- in addition to State lands and waste lands inherited from Britain, in its role as Trustee under the Mandate for Palestine -- parcels of land (1) owned by Jews via purchase, (2) owned by Jews via confiscation from Arabs, and (3) owned by Arabs and other Gentiles. In fact, from April 1920 (when the League of Nations established Mandatory Palestine on non-sovereign territory seized from the Ottoman Empire) to January 1948 (when the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Party” invaded western Mandatory Palestine), every property acquired by “Palestinian” Jews in western Mandatory Palestine was purchased by them either from British Mandatory authorities (as authorized by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine with respect to “State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”) or from Arab landowners.

Moreover, for thousands of years prior thereto (i.e., during the Roman, Byzantine, early Arab, Crusader, late Arab, and Ottoman Occupations), no Jew -- even had he so desired -- was permitted to acquire property in the Land of Israel other than via purchase.

However, as a result of the invasion of western Mandatory Palestine by the “Arab Liberation Army” in January 1948, which joined local “Palestinian” Arab militias and mobs that had earlier begun attacking Jewish cities and villages and Jewish neighborhoods of mixed cities, beginning in 1920, but especially in reaction to the issuance of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 (commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”), these belligerents -- subsequently joined by multiple Arab States on May 15, 1948 -- captured Jewish villages and Jewish neighborhoods of mixed cities, and confiscated Jewish-owned properties therein.

Naturally, when the Hagana militia pivoted from purely defensive actions to a mixture of defensive and offensive actions shortly after and in reaction to the invasion of the “Arab Liberation Army”, it not only began to recapture many of those conquered Jewish villages, but it also began to capture hostile Arab villages and confiscate Arab-owned properties therein.

The strategic difference between these conquests was that the Arab aggressors targeted all Jewish communities for capture, depopulation, and property confiscation, while the Jewish defenders targeted only those Arab communities that were actively participating in or otherwise supporting the Arab war effort. So, in all areas conquered and retained by Arabs during the hostilities of 1948 - 1949, Jewish properties became Arab-owned properties; and, in many areas conquered and retained by Jews during this same period, Arab properties became Jewish-owned properties. Yet, even as much of the World complains that, during this period, Jews defending themselves against Arab aggressors thereby stole and retained properties that belonged to “Palestinian” Arabs, it has hypocritically continued to ignore the fact that, during this same period, Arab aggressors (including “Palestinian” Arabs) stole and retained properties that belonged to “Palestinian” Jews -- until 1967 when those Jews, acting through the Jewish State, reacquired from those Arab aggressors (including “Palestinian” Arabs) all lands in former western Mandatory Palestine that had been previously stolen from the Jewish people.

Consequently, in making its claim that the State of Israel was created upon stolen land, not only do anti-Israel polemicists ignore the fact that all land acquisition by Jews in western Mandatory Palestine prior to January 1948 was exclusively by means of purchase, but it also ignores the legal and moral distinction between:

(1) lands thereafter captured and retained by Jews in the conduct of self-defense, and

(2) lands thereafter captured and retained by Arabs in the conduct of aggression.

The former had (and continue to have) the right to retain their spoils of war and to reacquire property that was taken from them, while the latter do not -- which is exactly why Israeli law permits Jews to reclaim ownership of properties lost to Arab aggressors during the hostilities of 1948 - 1949, but does not permit those Arab aggressors to reclaim ownership of properties lost to Jews during those hostilities.

Moreover, in making its claim that the State of Israel was created upon stolen land, these anti-Israel polemicists also ignore the fact that Israel -- a State allegedly built by means of Theft -- chose not to “steal” the cities and villages upon which the non-departing Arab population resided at the end of Israel’s War of Independence. If Israel was actually built by means of Theft, then not completing the Theft makes no sense.

Obviously, had the Arabs accepted the Palestine Partition Plan instead of initiating a war of annihilation against the Jewish population of western Mandatory Palestine, not one Arab (or Jew) would have lost possession or ownership of his property therein.

Despite the pan-Arab conquest of 1948, Transjordan's illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (as a result of which the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, then possessing lands on both banks of the Jordan River, renamed itself the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1949, and simultaneously redesignated those conquered districts as the “West Bank”), and Egypt's illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 of Gaza, as well as both States’ concomitant destruction of all Jewish communities there, did not remove these now Judenrein (cleansed of Jews) areas from the legal ambit of the Mandate. Accordingly, the internationally-authorized Mandatory rights inhering in the Jewish people, namely “... close settlement by Jews on the Land ...” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 6) and the reconstitution therein of “... the Jewish national home ...” (Mandate for Palestine, Articles 2 & 4), continued to apply to Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza (and also to the Golan Heights) -- albeit in a state of dormancy -- until those collective rights were reactivated via Israel’s reacquisition of those stolen lands in 1967.

This seldom-acknowledged truth of international law is reinforced by the fact that the 1949 Armistice Agreements -- which were negotiated under supervision of the United Nations and which ostensibly terminated Israel's War of Independence -- essentially declared that the armistice demarcation lines that encompassed Israel at the end of that war were not to be deemed its lawful international boundaries but only military separation-of-forces lines (or, more simply stated, mere ceasefire lines) determined without prejudice to the combatant parties’ “... rights, claims and positions ... in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question ...” (Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement, Article XI; Israel-Lebanon Armistice Agreement, Article II, Paragraph 2; Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, Article II, Paragraph 2; and Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement, Article II, Paragraph 2); and, amazingly, this same juridical formulation was applied to Israel's armistice demarcation line with Lebanon even though that line was identical to the former international boundary between the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine and Lebanon. Yet, how did Israel manage to convince its Arab adversaries that the Armistice Agreements should memorialize, and thereby legally preserve, the Jewish State's prewar territorial right to the illegally-occupied remainder of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine, as well as to the illegally-transferred Golan Heights? Ironically, Israel is not entitled to any credit for this juridical result. For, although Israel was prepared to accept all of the armistice demarcation lines as its internationally-recognized boundaries -- thereby waiving its legal right to the remainder of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine as well as to the Golan Heights -- aggressors Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria were not so prepared! It was precisely due to the fact that all of these Arab countries refused to so accept these lines -- even that between Lebanon and Israel, which was identical to the international boundary between Lebanon and former western Mandatory Palestine -- that the Armistice Agreements declared, in effect, that such lines were not to be treated either as the Jewish State's recognized international boundaries or as those of the surrounding Arab countries. In fact, not only did each of these Arab States insist that its respective Armistice Agreement with Israel not bestow upon the latter any recognized international boundary, but -- even more significantly -- each of these States also made certain that its Armistice Agreement did not refer to any of the territory then controlled by the Jewish people as “Israel” but only as “Palestine”. Consequently, these Arab States' dogmatic refusal to recognize the legal existence of the renascent State of Israel dictated their corollary refusal to recognize any legal boundaries for that unrecognized Jewish State, thereby foreordaining the ironic juridical result that the 1949 Armistice Agreements neither granted to these invading Arab States internationally-recognized sovereignty over these newly-occupied territories -- illegal possession of which they had temporarily acquired by conquest -- nor otherwise purported to cancel the Jewish people's collective rights of settlement and self-determination therein pursuant to the international legal authority of the Mandate for Palestine.

Significantly, although, at Arab insistence, the Armistice Agreements refer to all Jewish-held territory (i.e. the State of Israel) as “Palestine”, none of the Armistice Agreements refer to any Arab-held territory as “Palestine” or makes any reference to the existence of a “Palestinian people” (or even to “Palestinian” Arabs), let alone to any claim by the latter to collective ownership of any portion of such Arab-held territory (i.e., Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem).

The four Armistice Agreements, operatively state, in salient part, as follows:

Israel - Egypt General Armistice Agreement, dated February 24, 1949

. . .

Article IV

With specific reference to the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. It is also recognized that the basic purposes and spirit of the Armistice would not be served by the restoration of previously held military positions, changes from those now held other than as specifically provided for in this Agreement, or by the advance of the military forces of either side beyond positions held at the time this Armistice Agreement is signed.

3. It is further recognized that rights, claims or interests of a non-military character in the area of Palestine covered by this Agreement may be asserted by either Party, and that these, by mutual agreement being excluded from the Armistice negotiations, shall be, at the discretion of the Parties, the subject of later settlement. It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice.

Article V

1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

. . .

Article XI

No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question.

. . .

Israel - Lebanon General Armistice Agreement, dated March 23, 1949

. . .

Article II

With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

. . .

Article IV

1. The line described in Article V of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

. . .

Article V

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

. . .

Israel - Jordan General Armistice Agreement, dated April 3, 1949

. . .

Article II

With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;

2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

. . .

Article IV

1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

. . .

Article VI

. . .

9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

. . .

Israel - Syria General Armistice Agreement, dated July 20, 1949

. . .

Article II

With a specific view to the implementation of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military, and not by political, considerations.

. . .

Article IV

1. The line described in Article V of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948.

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

. . .

Article V

1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarised Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.

2. In pursuance of the spirit of the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948, the Armistice Demarcation Line and the Demilitarised Zone have been defined with a view toward separating the armed forces of the two Parties in such manner as to minimize the possibility of friction and incident, while providing for the gradual restoration of normal civilian life in the area of the Demilitarised Zone, without prejudice to the ultimate settlement.

. . .

It is clear that, although the Armistice Agreements explicitly acknowledged the Arabs’ de facto possession of lands over which the Jewish people had acquired exclusive national rights by virtue of the Mandate for Palestine, the Armistice Agreements did not cede to the Arabs any de jure sovereignty thereover. Consequently, Israel’s armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which preserved Israel’s Mandatory-era claims to all of former western Mandatory Palestine, served as the legal basis for Egypt (in 1979) and Jordan (in 1994) to recognize Israel’s international border with each of these States as being identical to former western Mandatory Palestine’s administrative borders with each of these States.

Incredibly, even decades later -- despite the constant terrorist infiltrations emanating from Israel’s armistice partners -- the Jewish State continued to express its readiness to accept its nonviable armistice demarcation lines as internationally-recognized boundaries. In particular, on May 17, 1965 -- being more than 2 years prior to the Jewish people’s reacquisition of Gaza, Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as a consequence of the 1967 Six Day War -- Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, in a speech to Israel’s parliament, offered to replace all four Armistice Agreements with peace treaties, with the result that all of Israel’s 1949 armistice demarcation lines would be converted into legally-recognized international borders, declaring, in part, as follows:

“If we try to sum up our peace plan as it has been articulated in our statements, hopes and actions, we should say, first of all, that the foundation of it is full respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the States in the region. From the juridical point of view, the effort for peace in the region is anchored to two international obligations, one general and the other specific. The general obligation is the duty accepted by all member States of the United Nations to live with each other in peace and good neighborliness, to unite their forces for the maintenance of peace and security in the World, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the independence or territorial integrity of any State. I am quoting from the United Nations Charter, which both we and the Arab States signed. There is, however, a second obligation in the armistice agreements of 1949. These lay down that they constitute a transition stage towards permanent peace. We propose, therefore, that direct negotiations be conducted between Israel and the States that signed the agreements with us, to replace them by pacts of peace. The peace settlement will be made on the basis of Israel as it is.”

However, no Arab aggressor deigned to accept Israel’s proposal at that time, thereby legally preserving -- even against Israel’s will -- all of the Jewish State’s Mandatory-era territorial claims. Incredibly, this situation created a double folly, as Israel was foolish to offer this proposal, while the Arab States were even more foolish to reject it, thereby unintentionally rescuing Israel from seriously endangering its existence.

In fact, absent Israel's formal consent (per Articles 77 and 79 of the U.N. Charter), not even the United Nations itself can lawfully terminate, reduce or otherwise restrict the collective Jewish rights of settlement and self-determination authorized by the Mandate for Palestine. For, although Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter (entitled “International Trusteeship System” and comprising Articles 75 through 85 thereof), permits three categories of non-sovereign territories, including “... territories now held under mandate ...” (Article 77, Paragraph 1a), to be placed under a U.N. trusteeship agreement, under the supervision of a designated “... administering authority ...” (Article 81), it also states that: “It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms” (Article 77, Paragraph 2); and it further states that: “The terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the trusteeship system, including any alteration or amendment, shall be agreed upon by the states directly concerned, including the mandatory power in the case of territories held under mandate by a Member of the United Nations, and shall be approved as provided for in Articles 83 and 85” (Article 79). The inviolability of collective Jewish rights under the Mandate for Palestine is further reinforced and crystallized by Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which Charter provision severely restricts the United Nations’ legal authority to abrogate or alter any provision of the Mandate for Palestine. Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter states, in full, as follows:

Article 80

1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Accordingly, Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which states, in full, as follows:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”

was made binding upon the United Nations by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter.

Consequently, United Nations Security Council Resolution no. 242 -- issued in the aftermath of Israel's Six Day War of 1967, as a result of which Israel conquered the territories of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights -- did not create any explicit infringement of the rights acquired by the Jewish people pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine. Nor did the U.N. Security Council attempt to accomplish such an unlawful goal, as the Resolution was issued pursuant to Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter (entitled “Pacific Settlement Of Disputes” and comprising Articles 33 through 38 thereof), thereby rendering it directory (i.e., a nonbinding recommendation to the parties), rather than pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter (entitled “Action With Respect To Threats To The Peace, Breaches Of The Peace And Acts Of Aggression” and comprising Articles 39 through 51 thereof), which -- absent the existence of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter -- would have rendered it mandatory (i.e., a legal obligation imposed upon the parties and, consequently, subject to U.N. enforcement powers, including the imposition of member-State sanctions and the employment of member-State military intervention).

Accordingly, the Resolution did not require Israel to relinquish possession over territory in which the Jewish people had acquired, through the Mandate, the internationally-recognized legal rights of settlement and self-determination. Rather, the Resolution merely called, as a necessary component of “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East”, for negotiations leading to the Israel's withdrawal from deliberately-unspecified portions of “... territories occupied in the recent conflict ...” in order, inter alia, to establish for Israel “... secure and recognized boundaries ...”. However, as will be discussed elsewhere in this Essay, even though the Resolution did not call for Israel to fully withdraw from the territories conquered by it in the Six Day War, the Resolution nonetheless sought to diminish rather than to effectuate Israel’s rights under international law.

The authoritative and laboriously-negotiated English-language text of the Resolution reflected an implicit international acknowledgment that, although the State of Israel had enlarged itself as a result of the 1967 Six Day War, expanding its control over original Mandatory Palestine from 17% to 23% thereof (and over western Mandatory Palestine from 77% to 100% thereof), the Jewish State had nevertheless been the victim of genocidal Arab aggression in that War due, in part, to the wholly untenable military separation-of-forces lines of 1949 which had rendered Israel an inviting target for invasion and destruction.

It will be recalled that, for almost two decades prior to June 1967, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan -- in rank violation of their 1949 Armistice Agreements with Israel -- had continuously permitted the various factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its “Fedayeen” (meaning: “those who sacrifice themselves”) precursors to mount terrorist attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon, from the Golan Heights, from northern Sinai and Gaza, and from Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

In a further violation of its Armistice Agreement with Israel, on December 10, 1950, Jordan temporarily occupied and blockaded a portion of Israel’s highway no. 90, thereby separating Israel’s southernmost city, Eilat, from the remainder of the State.

In a further violation of its Armistice Agreement with Israel, Syria gradually encroached upon and occupied the Demilitarized Zone established between the two countries, so that, by 1952, its armed forces had illegally seized possession of:

(1) the eastern bank of the Jordan River flowing south from Lake Hula to Lake Kinneret,

(2) the northeastern shore of Lake Kinneret (constituting approximately 20% of its shoreline), and

(3) the village of Hammah (now known as Hamat Gader) and its environs located near the Yarmouk River southeast of Lake Kinneret,

all of which occupied territory was west of Israel’s former 1949 armistice demarcation line with Syria.

In addition, the Syrian army regularly employed mortars and snipers against the Jewish communities of northern Israel from well-fortified positions on the Golan Heights (which towers approximately 900 meters -- almost 3000 feet -- above portions of northern Israel).

Furthermore, almost immediately after the signing of its Armistice Agreement with Israel, Egypt had begun to illegally confiscate cargo on ships, or to bar or sink ships, traveling to and from Israel’s Mediterranean Sea ports via the Suez Canal (which is an international waterway connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Suez prong of the northern Red Sea that was constructed on the border between the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt proper, through which the passage of international maritime traffic was guaranteed pursuant to the Convention of Constantinople of 1888).

In response to Israel’s complaint concerning the foregoing, the United Nations Security Council -- in a rare display of fairness towards Israel -- issued U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 95 of September 1, 1951 (identified as U.N. document S/2322), which declared Egypt’s maritime belligerence to be, inter alia, “inconsistent with the objectives of a peaceful settlement between the parties and the establishment of a permanent peace in Palestine set forth in the Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel” (Resolution, paragraph 6), and “an abuse of the exercise of the right of visit, search and seizure” (Resolution, paragraph 7); and it consequently concluded as follows:

“Calls upon Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all interference with such shipping beyond that essential to the safety of shipping in the Canal itself and to the observance of the international conventions in force.”

(Resolution, paragraph 10).

However, unsurprisingly, Egypt ignored the Resolution.

Meanwhile, in May 1955, in an effort to prevent open warfare between Israel and Egypt, the United States (at the direction of President Dwight Eisenhower) and Britain presented a proposal denominated as the “Alpha Plan”, which was predicated upon the diplomatic posture that Israel (then existing exclusively within its former armistice demarcation lines of 1949) was illegally occupying Arab territory beyond its former U.N. Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines of 1947, as a result of which the Jewish State would be required to make territorial concessions to Egypt and Jordan in exchange for peace treaties. Although, in the context of the defunct Palestine Partition Plan, the international community (including the United States) continued to falsely accuse Israel of occupying foreign territory, the international community declined to accuse Egypt or Jordan of perpetrating the same offense, instead choosing to abet the latter States’ illegal seizure of foreign territory by enlarging that seizure. Consequently, the “Alpha Plan” required, inter alia, that Israel cede to both Egypt and Jordan a land corridor across Israel’s Negev Desert, thereby creating territorial contiguity between Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and Jordan (and consequently separating Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat and other Jewish communities in the southern Negev Desert from the remainder of Israel). This plan was eventually rejected by Israel (as well as by Egypt, which demanded that Israel transfer to it the entire Negev Desert, then comprising 65% of Israel’s territory).

Subsequently, in September 1955, Egypt accelerated its belligerence against Israel by also illegally closing the Strait of Tiran (which is an international waterway situated between the Sinai Peninsula and Saudi Arabia that leads to the Gulf of Eilat (also known as the “Gulf of Aqaba”) prong of the northern Red Sea) to all maritime traffic going to and from Israel, thereby blockading Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat. The combination of these Egyptian blockades and frequent episodes of Egyptian-sponsored terrorism finally led Israel to invade and capture Sinai and Gaza in what became known as the “Sinai Campaign”, which began on October 29, 1956.

A temporary confluence of interests with Britain and France (due to Egypt’s earlier military seizure and nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956) caused those two countries to assist the Israeli invasion by thereafter inundating Sinai with their own troops with the intention of recapturing the Suez Canal. However, Britain and France soon withdrew their troops from Sinai at the behest of the United States. As its price for withdrawal, Israel demanded that Egypt reopen both the Suez Canal and the Strait of Tiran to maritime traffic going to and from Israel, and that Sinai and Gaza be demilitarized. Israel was forced by threats of diplomatic and economic retaliation by the United States (at the direction of President Dwight Eisenhower), as well as by the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union, to withdraw its demand for passage through the Suez Canal. In order to ensure Egyptian compliance with the terms of Israel’s withdrawal and to prevent any future outbreak of hostilities, the U.N. created a multinational peacekeeping force, known as the “United Nations Emergency Force”, which was placed in Sinai and in Gaza in order to ensure these territories’ demilitarization and to act as a buffer between Egypt and Israel. Israel thereafter withdrew its forces from Sinai and Gaza on March 16, 1957.

Nonetheless, Arab aggression against Israel continued apace during the next decade. By the Spring of 1967 it had become clear to Israel that its 1949 “armistice partners” were determined to annihilate it in one final pan-Arab assault. On April 7, 1967, Syria virtually destroyed Kibbutz Gadot, located in the Upper Galilee, via a concentrated barrage of approximately 800 artillery shells fired from the Golan Heights -- an indisputable act of War. In May 1967, after having sent its infantry and tanks northward and massing them near its armistice demarcation line with Israel, Egypt successfully demanded that the United Nations Emergency Force withdraw its buffer forces from Sinai and Gaza, after which Egypt remilitarized Sinai and Gaza in violation of its Armistice Agreement with Israel – an indisputable act of War. Moreover, Egypt simultaneously reinstituted its naval blockade against Israel's Red Sea port of Eilat (resulting, inter alia, in the interruption of Israel's main supply of petroleum) -- another indisputable act of War. Meanwhile, Syria -- which had earlier entered into a military pact with Egypt -- began to thicken its forces in the Golan Heights; and finally, on May 30, 1967, Jordan also entered into a military pact with Egypt that, inter alia, placed Jordan’s armed forces (bolstered by soldiers from Iraq and Saudi Arabia) under Egyptian command. All told, Syria, Egypt and Jordan encircled Israel with approximately 300,000 troops, 2,000 tanks and 700 warplanes. On May 18, 1967 the Cairo-based government-controlled Kul al-Arab (Voice of the Arabs) Radio proclaimed: “As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the U.N. about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.” On May 20, 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad declared: “Our forces are now entirely ready, not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” And on May 28, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abd el-Nasser stated: “We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim is the destruction of Israel.” It is notable that these annihilationist declarations by Arab leaders constituted prosecutable violations of the U.N. Genocide Convention (as further discussed elsewhere in this Essay).

Despite the foregoing, both the United States (at the direction of President Lyndon Johnson) and the Soviet Union warned Israel not to respond to the acts of war already initiated by Syria and Egypt and not to preempt their publicly-threatened invasion.

On June 5, 1967, in defiance of the United States and the Soviet Union, Israel responded with military strikes against Egypt and Syria, which ultimately resulted in the Jewish State’s capture of Sinai and in its reacquisition of Gaza and the Golan Heights; but Israel simultaneously promised not to act against Jordan if the latter would refrain from joining the War. When, on the very same day, Jordan nevertheless launched its portion of the pan-Arab War against Israel (commencing with the sustained bombardment of the western portion of Jerusalem with over 6,000 mortar and artillery shells in the first 3 days of the War as well as an aerial attack against Netanya and a long-gun artillery barrage against Tel Aviv from positions in west-central Samaria just east of Israel’s former 1949 armistice demarcation lines), the Jewish State repelled the Jordanian forces and launched a counter-attack which resulted in the Jewish State’s reacquisition of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem. Although this attempt to destroy Israel was led by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, additional troops and weaponry were contributed by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and Algeria.

It must be emphasized that the ongoing violations by Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Syria of their 1949 Armistice Agreements with Israel -- culminating in the latter three’s coordinated attempt to annihilate the Jewish State in 1967 -- necessarily absolved Israel from any further legal obligation to comply those Agreements, including any further legal obligation to recognize or otherwise abide by the armistice demarcation lines created by those breached Agreements. Essentially, the former 1949 armistice demarcation lines, being nothing more than arbitrary ceasefire lines with the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, were erased by those three Arab countries when they initially breached, and thereafter continued to breach, their Armistice Agreements with Israel from 1949 to 1967. Consequently, the Ceasefire having been breached by the Arabs, the Jewish people’s reacquisition in a war of self-defense of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights, to which lands the Jewish State had retained its Mandatory-era sovereignty claims, was lawfully accomplished.

Although Lebanon’s continuing violations of its Armistice Agreement with Israel also absolved the Jewish State from any further legal obligation to comply with that Agreement, Lebanon’s lack of active participation in the 1967 Six Day War influenced Israel not to respond -- at that time -- to such Lebanese violations by capturing territory within that country in order to provide itself with more defensible borders. However, as a belated response to Lebanon’s continuing violations of its Armistice Agreement, Israel did eventually capture and hold territory within the southern portion of that country during various times from 1978 to 2000. Tellingly, even after Israel fully withdrew from southern Lebanon in May 2000, and even after the United Nations, using professional surveyors, demarcated the border between Israel and Lebanon in June 2000 (so that the newly-demarcated border would conform to the 1949 armistice demarcation line, which was identical to the international border between former western Mandatory Palestine and Lebanon), Lebanon has refused to accept the legitimacy of the U.N.-demarcated border. Instead, Lebanon has insisted that:

(a) territory on the western slopes of Mount Hermon atop the Golan Heights, known as Mount Dov, that Israel had captured from Syria during the 1967 Six Day War (which Lebanon has denominated as the “Shaba Farmlands”) belongs to Lebanon, because, although Syria had been in continuous possession of Mount Dov from the date of its statehood until Israel’s seizure thereof, Syria had, at some unspecified earlier date, allegedly ceded its sovereignty over Mount Dov to Lebanon; and

(b) the northern portion of Israel’s Upper Galilee region belongs to Lebanon, because, prior to Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, that territory hosted 6 Shiite Muslim villages and one mixed Shiite Muslim - Greek Catholic village (which Lebanon has denominated as the “Seven Villages”), the residents of which fled to Lebanon during the War. This absurd claim posits that, by fleeing to Lebanon, those villagers had bestowed Lebanese sovereignty over their abandoned villages in Mandatory Palestine.

However, if the latter claim were to be upheld, then Israel could rightly claim sovereignty over any territory in any Arab State from which Jews fled or were expelled.

In light of the foregoing, although the internationally-recognized Doctrine of Preemptive Defense (also known as the Doctrine of Anticipatory Defense) permits a nation to defend itself from imminent aggression by striking its enemy first, it is nonetheless clear that the widespread labeling of the Six Day War as a preemptive war initiated by Israel is misleading. A truly preemptive war is one in which the preemptor’s adversary has credibly threatened, but has not yet commenced, an imminent war against the preemptor. In contrast, the several battles comprising what became known as the Six Day War constituted Israel’s belated response to the ongoing pan-Arab war that had been continuously prosecuted against the Jewish State during the prior two decades, especially the huge escalation thereof that had occurred in the preceding two months.

Accordingly, Israel’s strike against its Arab enemies in June 1967 is more properly denominated as the employment of Reactive Defense. However, the Six Day War is habitually labeled as being preemptive rather than reactive for two basic reasons. Firstly, Israel was able to successfully use its air force and mechanized infantry against the Arabs before they were able to successfully use those crucial military components against Israel, thereby preempting an imminent pan-Arab territorial invasion of the Jewish State; and secondly, Israel’s use of reactive force took place so many years after the commencement of post-armistice Arab aggression that such Israeli counterforce naturally (albeit falsely) presented itself to the World as being preemptive rather than reactive. Nonetheless, regardless of its labeling, Israel’s preemption of an imminent territorial invasion certainly did not convert the status of the Six Day War from a lawful defensive military action into an unlawful offensive military action.

However, it should be noted that, although the U.N. Security Council implicitly conceded the undeniable fact that Israel had been the victim and the surrounding Arab countries had been the aggressors in the Six Day War, that deliberative body was nonetheless unwilling to explicitly elucidate this Truth in the Resolution. In fact, the text thereof is so neutral as between victim and aggressor that it neither identifies the participants in the war nor otherwise utters the name “Israel”, except in its call for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” -- a provision from which an uninformed person might readily (albeit falsely) infer that Israel had been the aggressor in that War. This exhibition of diplomatic cowardice by the U.N. Security Council was motivated both by its aversion to angering the Islamic World by labeling some of their members as aggressors and by its understanding that these Jew-hating countries would never accept a U.N. resolution which not only failed to patently condemn the Jewish State but which made excessive reference, by name, to that State, the existence of which (as of 1967) these countries refused to accept de jure or to acknowledge de facto.

Yet, whatever its faults, U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 did implicitly acknowledge that the Arab violation of the Armistice Agreements had erased the armistice demarcation lines embedded in those Agreements, much as the earlier Arab rejection of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) had erased the Partition Plan boundary lines embedded in that Resolution.

U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 states, in full, as follows:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (22 November 1967).

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter:

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

It is noteworthy that the Resolution neither calls upon Israel to return to its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines nor even refers to those military separation-of-forces lines (or to any equivalent formulation, such as: “the lines of June 4, 1967”). That Israel is not called upon to withdraw to the military separation-of-forces lines of 1949 is further proven by the refusal of the U.N. Security Council to insert the word(s) “all” or “the” or “all of the” before the phrase “territories occupied in the recent conflict” in operative paragraph 1(i) of the Resolution -- despite a five-month pre-passage diplomatic onslaught by the Arab nations and their allies to so modify the language thereof. That the omission of the word “all” from operative paragraph 1(i) of the Resolution was deliberate is further proven by the fact that the word “all” was carefully placed before the phrase “claims or states of belligerency” in operative paragraph 1(ii) of the Resolution. Moreover, interpreting the Resolution to request that Israel withdraw from all of the territories would have rendered the Resolution’s call for negotiations to establish “secure and recognized boundaries” superfluous.

As stated on January 19, 1970 by George Brown, Foreign Secretary of Britain in 1967:

“I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the U.N. Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

(reported in Israel-based Jerusalem Post newspaper, January 23, 1970).

This position was reiterated numerous times by Hugh Foot, better known as “Lord Caradon”, Britain’s U.N. Ambassador in 1967, who participated in the drafting of the Resolution. Typical of his explanation of the Resolution are the following:

“It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to.”

(excerpt from an interview with Lord Caradon in the Lebanon-based Daily Star newspaper, June 12, 1974).

“We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.”

(excerpt from an interview with Lord Caradon in the Journal of Palestine Studies, entitled “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pages 144-45)

This was also the position of the United States. As stated by Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States in 1967:

“That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties [i.e., Israel and the adjacent Arab States].”

(excerpt from an interview with U.S.-based NBC Television Network, “Meet The Press” program, July 12, 1970).

Moreover, the Resolution's explicit call for negotiations between “the States concerned” (i.e., Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon) to establish for themselves (i.e., including Israel) “secure and recognized boundaries” constituted an acknowledgment by the international community that the former 1949 armistice demarcation lines were neither “secure” (i.e., although Israel had prevailed in the 1967 Six Day War, the 1949 separation-of-forces lines were not militarily defensible) nor “recognized” (i.e., the 1949 separation-of-forces lines did not constitute internationally-recognized boundaries).

As declared on September 10, 1968 by United States President Lyndon Johnson:

“We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure -- and there must be recognized -- borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors [i.e., the Arab States bordering Israel] involved.”

However, notwithstanding the respective statements of the foregoing officials, the interpretation of the Resolution is not dependent upon these statements due to the unambiguous language of the Resolution. For, even if every official who had affirmed the plain meaning of the Resolution had subsequently repudiated his statement, such repudiations would not and could not alter the plain language and consequently the plain meaning of the Resolution.

In the context of Israel’s entitlement to retain secure borders, it is crucial to comprehend that even after Israel’s reacquisition of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1967, the Jewish State had only increased its narrow width, as measured by the distance between the western edge of Tel Aviv (i.e., at the Mediterranean Sea) and the nearest Arab-controlled territory to the East (i.e., on the eastern bank of the Jordan River), from 18 kilometers (approximately 11 miles) to 64 kilometers (approximately 40 miles), thereby marginally lengthening the time for Arab warplanes launched from the East to reach Tel Aviv from one minute to three minutes. Accordingly, logic dictates that Israel must retain all 64 kilometers (40 miles) of its present width (i.e., from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River) in order for it to maintain minimally secure borders.

Yet, disingenuously -- despite the fact that the members of the U.N. Security Council debated the provisions of, and voted to pass, only the English-language version of the Resolution (the draft of which was submitted by Britain to the Security Council as U.N. document S/8247), and despite the fact that British and American diplomats have publicly stated that the omission of the definite article “the” before the noun “territories” in the text thereof was intentional -- many anti-Zionist polemicists claim fealty only to the French-language translation of the English-language Resolution which employs the phrase “des territoires” (which literally re-translates into the English language as “from the territories”, but which idiomatically re-translates into the English language as either “from the territories” or “from territories”). However, due to the fact that this apparent ambiguity in meaning occurs only because the grammatical rules of the French language do not permit the employment of the preposition “from” together with its intended object without the interpolation of the definite article “the” (i.e., the English-language phrase “from territories” cannot grammatically be rendered into the French language except as “des territoires”), France declared -- soon after the Resolution was issued -- that the French-language version thereof was intended to be an exact translation of the English-language text thereof, and that, consequently, its version did not cause the Resolution to have any different meaning in the French language than it had in the English language.

Of course, since the Resolution is merely a recommendation and is, consequently, nonbinding, any linguistic argument over the withdrawal component thereof is only of academic interest. Yet, even if the Resolution were mandatory rather than directory, since the Resolution does not, in fact, demand withdrawal from all of the territories, has already satisfied the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component by effecting the following:

(a) relinquishment to Syria of the district of Kuneitra on the Golan Heights (plus all of the additional lands captured by Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 beyond the Golan Heights towards Damascus) by 1974; and

(b) relinquishment to Egypt of the district of Sinai (plus all of the additional lands captured by Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 beyond Sinai towards Cairo) by 1982; and

(c) staged withdrawal of the Israeli army from Area A of the “West Bank” from 1994 to 1997; and

(d) full withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza in 2005 (after a partial withdrawal therefrom in 1994)

-- constituting in excess of 90% of the territories acquired by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War (plus 100% of the new territories acquired by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War).

The Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur (meaning: Day of Atonement) -- when most government functions in Israel cease and most Jews are in synagogues praying and fasting -- was observed on October 6 in 1973. On that very day, in rank violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242, Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated invasion against Israel. Along the Suez Canal, approximately 80,000 Egyptian soldiers attacked approximately 500 Israeli soldiers; and in the Golan Heights, approximately 1,400 Syrian tanks attacked approximately 180 Israeli tanks. However, Egypt and Syria did not act alone. The Arab States of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan and Jordan contributed soldiers, tanks, aircraft and pilots, while the non-Arab States of Cuba and North Korea also contributed aircraft and pilots.

Moreover, Lebanon, although not directly participating in the War, permitted “Palestinian” terrorists to attack northern Israel’s civilian population centers with rockets and mortars from its territory during the War.

All of these nations thereby attempted by military means to deprive Israel of the benefits of the Resolution's recommendation of negotiations leading to “secure and recognized boundaries” for the Jewish State, as a consequence of which it may be argued that the aggressors thereby forfeited their recommended benefits under the Resolution. Moreover, it may be further argued that -- even if Syria did not forfeit the Resolution's recommended benefits by its unprovoked attack upon Israel in 1973 -- since Syria's initial acquisition of the Golan Heights was illegal under international law, Israel's reacquisition of this territory was, and its present retention thereof is, lawful under international law.

Jordan’s participation in the Yom Kippur War requires comment, as it illuminates the extent to which Israel is (or is not) able to trust a “moderate” Arab State even when the interests of the former and the latter ostensibly align.

On September 19, 1970, approximately 3 years prior to the Yom Kippur War, Jordan was involved in defending itself against a rebellion led by the P.L.O., whose leadership and armed personnel were ensconced in several Jordanian cities. This rebellion was being aided by Syria, whose army had invaded Jordan. Utilizing Britain and the United States as conduits, Jordan pleaded with Israel to save it from the P.L.O.’s rebellion and the Syrian occupation. In response, Israel massed troops on its border with Syria, thereby causing Syria to withdraw its forces from Jordan, which severely disadvantaged the P.L.O. Israel’s intervention enabled Jordan to decimate the P.L.O. and to expel the latter’s surviving leadership and armed personnel to Lebanon.

Yet, despite the existential assistance extended by Israel to Jordan, and despite Syria’s attempt to conquer and annex Jordan, a mere 3 years later Jordan nonetheless sent its 40^th Armored Brigade (comprising 4,000 soldiers and 150 tanks) to its nemesis -- Syria -- in aid of the latter’s attempt to annihilate its benefactor -- Israel.

However, Jordan immediately hedged its bets against the potential adverse consequences of its treachery, by:

(a) claiming that, as a State adjacent to Israel that remained in a formal state of war with the Jewish State, it had no choice but to participate in the War in order to avoid being diplomatically and/or economically punished by the Arab League and/or individual Arab States; and

(b) disclosing the location of its Syria-based brigade to Israel, and imploring the latter not to attack either the brigade or Jordan itself on account of the latter’s participation in the War.

In fact, even though the Jordanian brigade did attack Israel, the latter -- although defending itself against the brigade -- chose not to retaliate against Jordan itself. With respect to Jordan’s spurious claim that it had no choice but to participate in the Yom Kippur War, it is noteworthy that, although Lebanon (which was also a State adjacent to Israel that had remained in a formal state of war with the Jewish State) chose not to commit any soldiers or tanks to the Yom Kippur War, that Arab State did not suffer any adverse diplomatic or economic consequences from the Arab League or its other member States as a result of its ostensible “pacifism”.

It is also noteworthy that although the U.S. (at the direction of President Richard Nixon) agreed to resupply Israel with replacement airplanes, munitions and weaponry during the War, every U.S. ally in Western Europe denied landing rights for plane refueling -- and even overflight permission -- to the U.S. resupply operation. Eventually, Portugal breached Western Europe’s resupply blockade by permitting U.S. military transport planes to land and refuel in its autonomous Azores archipelago on their way to Israel. After leaving the Azores Islands, these U.S. resupply planes were then forced to traverse the skies above the Mediterranean Sea in the often-narrow air corridor between the maritime southern boundaries of the blockading Western European littoral states and the maritime northern boundaries of the belligerent Arab littoral States.

In the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, the U.N. Security Council issued its Resolution no. 338, which -- hearkening back to the cowardice displayed in its Resolution no. 242 concerning the Six Day War -- cravenly declined either (a) to identify Israel as the victim in the Yom Kippur War (or even utter the name “Israel”), or (b) to condemn Egypt and Syria as the principal aggressors (or to even identify them as participants) in that War. However, the enactment of this new Resolution did not change the indisputable fact that Israel’s adversaries had violated and thereby repudiated U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 when they again attacked Israel in 1973. U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 338 states, in full, as follows:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973).

The Security Council

1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;

2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

It is noteworthy that nowhere does U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 (or U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 338) assert any “Palestinian” collective ownership of -- or call for the establishment of a “Palestinian” State in -- any portion of the biblical Land of Israel. On the contrary, U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242’s explicitly-stated goal of safeguarding the “territorial integrity” and the “territorial inviolability” of “every State in the area” conclusively demonstrates that the Resolution was intended to address, not the present “Palestinian” Arab claim of sovereignty over certain portions of the lands captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, but rather that which its drafters (disingenuously or naively) viewed as mere boundary line disputes among the combatant States, namely, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and (although not a direct participant in the Six Day War) Lebanon -- the enumeration of which does not include, and was not intended to include, the non-sovereign Palestine Liberation Organization or any other non-State actor.

However, Israel did subsequently resolve the boundary line aspects of its existential disputes with Egypt (in 1979) and Jordan (in 1994) via formal peace treaties, each of which agreed that Israel’s recognized international border with that State was identical to former western Mandatory Palestine’s recognized border with that State (meaning that both Gaza and the “West Bank” were implicitly acknowledged as being inside Israel’s international borders, and thereby part of Israel’s territory), neither of which required Israel to withdraw from any of its reacquired territories (as none of these territories ever belonged to Egypt or Jordan), neither of which excepted from Israel’s recognized international border with that State the relevant reacquired border enclave (i.e., by stating that, notwithstanding the demarcation of the Israel-Egypt border, Israel lacked a recognized international border with Egypt wherever the latter was adjacent to Gaza; and by stating that, notwithstanding the demarcation of the Israel-Jordan border, Israel lacked a recognized international border with Jordan wherever the latter was adjacent to the “West Bank”), and neither of which identified the relevant reacquired border enclave as “Palestine” or stated that such enclave belonged to the Palestine Liberation Organization or to the “Palestinian” Arabs.

It is noteworthy that, although Egypt’s and Jordan’s breach of the 1949 ceasefire lines legally erased those lines, the subsequent Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace treaties definitively confirmed that prior erasure.

Consequently, the Resolution's extant withdrawal component, if any, presently applies, if at all, only to the boundary line aspects of Israel's existential disputes with Syria (due to Israel's continued possession of a portion of the Golan Heights) and Lebanon (due to the fact that, although Israel does not presently occupy any portion of Lebanon, as officially certified in 2000 by the U.N., the 1949 Israel-Lebanon Armistice Agreement does not require Lebanon -- or Israel -- to recognize the border between Lebanon and former western Mandatory Palestine as being the international border between Lebanon and Israel). Consequently, none of the presently-unresolved boundary line issues contemplated by the Resolution involve Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem or Gaza -- or the claims of the P.L.O. or any other non-State actor. Additional proof that the P.L.O. is not an intended beneficiary of the Resolution's withdrawal component can be found in the Resolution's explicit call for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”, this being the Resolution's sole reference to the rights and entitlements of the “Palestinian” Arabs.

Lastly, it is also noteworthy that U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242, in what is generally regarded as an implicit criticism of Israel’s conduct during the Six Day War, asserts “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. However, a proper understanding of the principles of international law (including those created by the Mandate for Palestine) leads to the contrary conclusion that it was Transjordan’s illegal acquisition of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem by offensive war in 1948 and Egypt’s illegal acquisition of Gaza by offensive war in 1948 that was “inadmissible”, rather than Israel’s lawful reacquisition thereof by defensive war in 1967.

To be more precise:

(a) In the case of territory to which the acquiring State does not possess an exclusive lawful claim of sovereignty, offensive acquisition thereof is prohibited by international law, while defensive acquisition thereof is permitted by international law.

(b) In the case of territory to which the acquiring State possesses an exclusive lawful claim of sovereignty (i.e., although such territory belongs to the acquiring State, it is being illegally occupied by the target State), reacquisition (however accomplished) is permitted by international law -- even if the target State’s illegal occupation has persisted for many decades.

A recent example of case (b) is Azerbaijan’s lawful reacquisition -- via offensive war -- of most of Nagorno-Karabakh and its environs, being territory that had been illegally occupied by Armenia for 27 years (from 1993 to 2020).

Due to the foregoing, U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 -- being the product of international politics -- is actually contrary to international law, as Israel’s defensive acquisition of Sinai was lawful under international law (despite Israel’s lack of any claim of sovereignty thereto), and Israel’s reacquisition of all other territories was lawful under international law (even had such reacquisition been accomplished via offensive war rather than defensive war, due to Israel’s exclusive lawful claim of sovereignty thereto). Alternatively stated, the Resolution sought to diminish rather than to effectuate Israel's rights under international law via its attempted repudiation of Israel’s prerogative to retain 100% of the territories that it had captured in the 1967 Six Day War. This makes U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967 kindred to U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) of 1947 (commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”), as the latter resolution similarly sought to diminish rather than to effectuate Israel's rights under international law via its attempted repudiation of the Jewish people’s prerogative to obtain its statehood in 100% of cis-Jordania (i.e., western Mandatory Palestine, comprising all of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River).

Unsurprisingly, Israel is the only State whose lawful reacquisition of territory that belongs to it (as well as its lawful acquisition of additional territory from which it has been habitually attacked) has been labeled, in Orwellian fashion, as illegal by the U.N. system and by virtually all member States.

Although the international community has also issued myriads of other U.N. Security Council resolutions and U.N. General Assembly resolutions (and has even procured an advisory opinion from the U.N. International Court of Justice) which appear to erode, or even negate, the international legal status of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, none of these resolutions (or such nonbinding judicial advisory ruling) have been able alter preexisting international law by which “... recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 3) on account of which “... close settlement by Jews on the Land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes” (Mandate for Palestine, Article 6) was thereby authorized. This is due, in part, to the fact that all of the Security Council resolutions against Israel have been issued under authority of Chapter VI rather than Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, and they are, consequently, directory (i.e., recommendatory) rather than mandatory (i.e., obligatory), and that General Assembly resolutions against member States are always directory (i.e., recommendatory).

However, even if the Security Council were to issue a resolution against Israel under the authority of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which seeks to deprive the Jewish people of their collective rights of settlement and self-determination under the Mandate for Palestine, that resolution would be in flagrant violation of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter (which, absent Israel's formal consent, prohibits the U.N. from using its potential trusteeship authority over the non-sovereign territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza “... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties”), and would, for that reason, be deemed null and void -- ab initio -- under international law.

Consequently, the State of Israel is the lawful repository of exclusive national rights in and to the entirety of the western portion of former Mandatory Palestine and the remnant of the eastern portion of former Mandatory Palestine that comprises the Golan Heights, which lands were explicitly granted to the Jewish people by virtue of the Mandate for Palestine. Alternatively stated, pursuant to international law (as established by the raison d’être and the provisions of the Mandate), and based upon the fact that the Jewish State has not ceded such national rights to any other Power, the State of Israel is the lawful sovereign in all of the Land of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea plus the Golan Heights.

Yet, don't the countless U.N. resolutions directed against the State of Israel’s sovereignty over the Land of Israel, although nonbinding, nevertheless, constitute the collective Will of the international community? -- Well, Yes.

In fact, it is often asserted that the State of Israel was created by the United Nations via U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) of November 29, 1947 (commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”) as a byproduct of Europe's alleged guilty conscience over its complicity in the Holocaust. Consequently, it is frequently argued that the Jewish State has a unique moral obligation to respect and implement all applicable U.N. resolutions, whether or not legally binding.

Accordingly, doesn't Israel's habitual disregard of such U.N. resolutions constitute it as an outlaw, or at least, an immoral nation? -- Well, No.

FIRSTLY, Israel’s juridical birth certificate is the pre-Holocaust League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 (provisionally operative from 1920) -- not the post-Holocaust United Nations Palestine Partition Plan of 1947. Moreover, the Mandate was itself explicitly based upon the preexisting “historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 3).

As Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine (and future Israeli Prime Minister) David Ben-Gurion reminded the Palestine Royal Commission (commonly known as the “Peel Commission”) during his testimony thereto on January 7, 1937, concerning the Jewish people’s aboriginal status in the Land of Israel:

“I say on behalf of the Jews that the Bible is our Mandate, the Bible which was written by us, in our own language, in Hebrew, in this very country. That is our Mandate. It was only recognition of this right which was expressed in the Balfour Declaration.”

Since the Jewish people’s right to reestablish their nation-state in the biblical Land of Israel became a pillar of international law decades before the advent of the Holocaust, and since this aspect of international law was merely a formal acknowledgment of the 4,000 year old aboriginal Jewish right to the Land, it is a gross misrepresentation of History to claim that the State of Israel instead emerged from the womb of the United Nations, impregnated by alleged European remorse over the Holocaust.

Moreover, while the Holocaust did not create the State of Israel, the absence of the State of Israel did create the Holocaust. For, had the Jewish State already existed when Nazi Germany arose from the ashes of World War I, virtually all of those who perished in the Holocaust would, instead, have been forcibly expelled by Nazi Germany to a welcoming Israel; and, consequently, there would have been no Holocaust.

Furthermore, if genuine European remorse over the Holocaust had really existed in 1947, then the United Nations General Assembly would never have issued its niggardly Palestine Partition Plan -- a recommendation of the international community which (following the decades-earlier severing from Mandatory Palestine of the territories which later became Jordan and the subsequent illegal transfer from Mandatory Palestine of the Golan Heights) left the Jewish people with less than 11% of that which the League of Nations had originally allocated to them under the Mandate for Palestine, deprived them of any sovereignty over Jerusalem, and saddled them with a demographic and sectarian time bomb in the form of a population that was 45% Arab, virtually all of whom were hostile to the creation of a Jewish State. Rather -- especially in light of the uncompromising language of Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine -- a penitent U.N., acting through its Security Council, would have issued at that time an authoritative resolution under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter: (1) affirming the continuing primacy of the Mandate for Palestine as the legal foundation for the establishment of a Jewish State, (2) recognizing full Jewish sovereignty over the entire western portion of Mandatory Palestine, including Jerusalem, which constituted the remaining 22% of original Mandatory Palestine and (3) acknowledging that the Jewish people had the right to repatriate to their countries of origin the many hundreds of thousands of hostile Arabs who, from 1920 onward, had been permitted to inundate the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine by Britain in rank violation of its fiduciary obligations to the Jewish people under the Mandate for Palestine.

Clearly, Israel exists neither due to Europe's alleged guilty conscience nor due to the issuance of the meager Palestine Partition Plan, but due only to the fact that the renascent Jewish State militarily defeated the seven Arab States which -- together with the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army”, and with “Palestinian” Arab militias and mobs drawn from Arab population centers throughout the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine -- sought to annihilate the Jewish State, thereby igniting Israel's War of Independence.

In fact, the appellation “Israel’s War of Independence” is somewhat of a misnomer; for, by the time of the War’s commencement on May 15, 1948, British occupation forces had already departed from the western portion of Mandatory Palestine, and the Jewish people had already declared the establishment of a Jewish State. Consequently, Israel was already an independent (albeit a threatened) nation-state at the outset of the War of Independence. It would be more accurate -- both historically and analytically -- to denominate this post-independence War as “Israel’s War of Survival”, and to denominate only the earlier pre-independence period beginning with the violent Jewish revolt against the British Mandatory authorities and ending with Britain’s forced withdrawal from the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine (i.e., from February 1, 1944 through May 14, 1948) as “Israel’s War of Independence”. Moreover, correcting the foregoing nomenclature would permit Israeli decisionmakers to conceptually recognize that Israel’s War of Survival did not end with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and that it has never ended, as each of Israel’s subsequent military campaigns, although officially denominated either as a “War” or as an “Operation”, was instead merely a series of battles in that long War of Survival.

Those who assert that Israel was created, rather than diminished, by the Palestine Partition Plan knowingly reverse Cause and Effect, as U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) was the result -- rather than the determinant -- of Britain’s decision to quit the remainder of Mandatory Palestine. This is because, in February 1947, Britain had already announced its intention to completely withdraw from the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine. Since this withdrawal announcement was made some 9 months prior to -- and, in fact, served as the direct impetus for -- the United Nations’ issuance of its Palestine Partition Plan, it is clear that the subsequent British withdrawal from the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine in May 1948, the consequent Arab war of annihilation against the Jewish population centers thereof (in rank violation of the Palestine Partition Plan) and the ensuing emergence of the State of Israel intact therefrom all would have occurred regardless of the existence of the Palestine Partition Plan.

Conversely, had the Jewish population centers of the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine been destroyed by the Arabs, and had Israel thereby lost its War of Independence, then neither United Nations’ resolutions nor supranational remorse would have sufficed to reverse such a catastrophic denouement.

Clearly, there is an enormous difference between endorsement and creation. While the United Nations certainly endorsed the establishment of present-day Israel (at least within the tiny Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines), that feckless endorsement (which was so violently rejected by the entire Arab, and larger Muslim, World) had no operative effect on the creation of the Jewish State precisely because that endorsement was stillborn.

Nonetheless, that endorsement did bestow upon Israel a unique international legal status, namely, that of being the only nation in the World whose establishment was officially endorsed by both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

However, delving deeper into the realm of Cause and Effect, it may be cogently argued that the State of Israel presently exists in the biblical Land of Israel as a Jewish nation-state within minimally-defensible borders due only to a combination of the belligerence and the impatience of the Arabs.

In the absence of this belligerence and impatience, approximately 42% of the citizenry to be encompassed within Israel, as defined by the 1947 Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines, would have been Arab, thereby constituting a demographic time bomb within the renascent Jewish State.

Now, let us hypothetically assume that neither the Arabs residing within the proposed Jewish State, nor the Arabs residing within the proposed Arab State, nor the Arabs residing within the surrounding Arab States had ever initiated a war of annihilation against the Jewish population centers of the western portion of Mandatory Palestine, but that they had instead simply acquiesced to the creation of Israel within the Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines recommended by U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II).

In these circumstances, the State of Israel would have included a huge law-abiding Arab electorate, which, never having warred against Israel, would have remained in place from the outset and, although still constituting a voting minority, would nonetheless have amassed decisive parliamentary power. In such circumstances, Israel’s parliament would not have been able to enact its “Law of Return” in order to facilitate and prioritize Jewish immigration thereto. For, it is this Law, coupled with the exodus of approximately 600,000 Arab belligerents during Israel’s War of Independence, which in tandem with a rising Jewish birthrate has allowed the Jewish population of Israel to maintain its overwhelming demographic dominance and, consequently, its electoral dominance over the extant Arab population thereof.

Also, in these circumstances, a miniscule Israel that was not invaded by the Arabs of the proposed Arab State or by the surrounding Arab States would not have fought any War of Independence; and it consequently would not have expanded from its 1947 Palestine Partition Plan boundary lines to its 1949 armistice demarcation lines -- let alone to its present post-1967 borders.

Consequently, it is likely that such a demographically-challenged Israel (i.e., a country hosting a large, undisturbed, and growing Arab population) would have quietly ceased to exist as a Jewish nation-state several generations ago.

The foregoing analysis demonstrates the principle that an event (e.g., the pan-Arab invasion of Israel in 1948) that is meant to result in Evil (e.g., the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of its Jewish population) sometimes results in Good (e.g., the enlargement of the territory under Jewish control and the departure of most of the hostile Arab population therefrom). This denouement was portended by the prescient declaration of Joseph to his brothers, to wit:

“‘Although you meant [to inflict] Evil upon me, God meant it for Good, in order to accomplish -- it is as [clear as] this Day -- that a vast people be kept alive.’”

(Genesis 50:20)

That the belligerent and impatient Arabs are themselves principally responsible for the State of Israel’s present entrenchment in the biblical Land of Israel as a Jewish nation-state within minimally-defensible borders is not only ironic but -- more importantly -- also constitutes a grand historic replay of the circumstances under which the Jewish people’s forebears, under the leadership of Joshua, originally returned to and thereafter conquered the Land. As is related in the Hebrew Bible, to wit:

“Joshua waged war with all of these [Canaanite] kings for a long time. There was not a city that made peace with the Children of Israel except for the Hivvite inhabitants of Gibeon; they [the Hebrews] took everything in battle. For it was from HaShem, to harden their [the Canaanite nations'] hearts towards battle against Israel, in order to destroy them [the Canaanite nations] -- that they not find favor [with the Hebrews] -- so that they would be extirpated [by the Hebrews], as HaShem had commanded Moses.”

(Joshua 11:18-20).

SECONDLY, it must be remembered that the collective Will of the international community, as expressed through the pronouncements and actions of the U.N., is not necessarily synonymous with principles of righteousness and enlightenment. The U.N. is, after all, a political organization that gives equal weight to the views of pacific democracies and violent dictatorships, thereby establishing a false moral equivalency between them. This principle of False Moral Equivalency is enshrined in Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of Chapter I (entitled “Purposes And Principles”) of the U.N. Charter, which declares: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”

However, even the U.N. itself acknowledges that a malevolent subculture permeates many member States that are embroiled in wars, including internecine wars. The U.N. Secretariat expresses this acknowledgment through its publication of an annual investigative report compiled by the “United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict” that, inter alia, lists those member States of the U.N. which host governmental and/or private organizations that “… recruit and use children, kill and maim, commit sexual violence or attack schools and hospitals; the so-called List of Shame.” (excerpt of a media statement dated June 11, 2012 from the United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict). For example, in 2011, the United Nations’ “List of Shame” comprised more than a dozen member States, which hosted more than 50 criminal organizations that systematically perpetrated crimes against children in war zones. Obviously, if the U.N. Secretariat were to widen its moral focus to encompass those member States that, even in the absence of war, systematically suppress the human rights of their resident populations (whether children or adults), then its “List of Shame” would expand exponentially.

In June 2024, the U.N. Secretariat absurdly added Israel to its “List of Shame” in response to Israel’s defensive war against Gaza (which was triggered by the invasion of Israel proper on October 7, 2023 by Hamas, allied terrorist militias, and ordinary Gazans, and their concomitant perpetration of horrific barbarities there). In order not to appear biased against the Jewish State, the U.N. Secretariat simultaneously added Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the List. In light of the U.N. system’s perennial efforts to prevent the Jewish State from robustly defending itself against its genocidal enemies (including Hamas and Islamic Jihad), it is surprising that it took the U.N. so long to add the Jewish State to the List.

The unfortunate but unavoidable equality between democracies and dictatorships throughout the United Nations system is reflected in the composition of its misnamed Security Council, its General Assembly, and all of the U.N.’s constituent committees (e.g., the U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee -- Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Issues), specialized agencies (e.g., the U.N.’s misnamed Human Rights Council, its misnamed Disarmament Commission, and its misnamed International Court of Justice) and affiliated organizations (e.g., the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the World Health Organization). Moreover, due to the fact that those nations which are governed by totalitarian regimes (of greater or lesser degree), as well as democracies which attach more importance to their mercantile interests (including their continued access to petroleum and natural gas reserves) than to upholding principles of either Morality or International Law, continue to constitute the vast majority of the membership of the U.N. (and, consequently, the vast majority of the memberships of the specialized agencies and affiliated organizations of the U.N. system), their views predominate and, consequently, tend to represent the amoral (and often immoral) collective Will of the international community.

Yet, how can it be that the same United Nations that endorsed the creation of the Jewish State on November 29, 1947 so stridently attempts to undo that creation? The answer is that, at the time that the U.N. General Assembly approved Resolution no. 181 (II), commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”, the U.N. was composed of only 57 member States, a small majority (i.e., 33 member States) of which believed that the creation of a Jewish State was warranted in cis-Jordania, provided that a new Arab State would also be created therein. However, at the present time, the U.N. is composed of 193 member States, a large majority of which is hostile to the existence of Israel within any portion of cis-Jordania. Alternatively stated, if the U.N. in 1947 had been composed of its present membership, then the Palestine Partition Plan, providing for the creation of both a Jewish State and an Arab State, would never have been approved. Instead, the U.N. General Assembly would have approved a resolution, consistent with contemporaneous British policy, that endorsed the creation of only one State in cis-Jordania -- an Arab State.

In blunt terms, the United Nations system represents rule by mob. Moreover, even without malevolent intent, both Morality and International Law are predictably sidelined as every member State seeks to use the numerous components of the U.N. system to further its own national interests and foreign policy objectives.

By way of stark example, in 1972, the United Nations saw fit to elect as its Secretary-General, Austria's Kurt Waldeim, a former Nazi officer during the Holocaust.

Another example of the United Nations’ egregious behavior was its expulsion of and its continuing refusal to readmit the sovereign nation of Taiwan (formally known as the “Republic of China”), due solely to the absurd claim advanced by its powerful adversary China (formally known as the “People’s Republic of China”) -- one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- that Taiwan was merely a rebellious Chinese province, despite the fact that China has never governed that island State. Taiwan’s expulsion from the U.N. was accomplished via the issuance of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 2758 (XXVI), of October 25, 1971 (identified as U.N. document A/RES/2758(XXVI), deceptively entitled “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations”).

In light of the fact that Muslim nations constitute almost 30% of the U.N.'s membership and, more crucially, are a core component of -- and hold sway over -- both the misnamed “Non-Aligned Movement” (which constitutes more than 60% of the U.N.'s membership) as well as “The Group of 77 and China at the United Nations” (which, comprising 134 developing member States, constitutes more than 69% of the U.N.’s membership), and in light of the fact that the member States of the European Union (hosting an aggregate Muslim minority population estimated at more than 45 million) usually vote as a bloc in support of Muslim-initiated resolutions against the Jewish State, it is not surprising that Israel has been the object of a disproportionate number of U.N.-approved calumnies.

The diplomatic assault against Israel qua the Jewish State consists of three recurring components: Demonization (i.e., Israel is routinely alleged to be Evil), Delegitimization (i.e., Israel is routinely alleged to have been illegally created through a combination of colonialism, land theft, genocide and expulsion) and Double Standards (i.e., Israel is routinely subjected to obsessive and singular scrutiny of its misdeeds, whether real or imagined, whether large or small, while the much greater misdeeds of other U.N. member States are routinely ignored, downplayed or obscured). The long-term objective of this diplomatic assault is to create the moral and legal justifications for the forcible dismantlement of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

It is not hyperbolic to assert that, since Israel’s admittance thereto in May 1949, the United Nations itself has become the primary engine for producing and disseminating amongst the peoples of the World the avalanche of slanders which have given rise to the notion that, for the sake of Peace, Justice and Stability in the World, Israel qua the Jewish State should not exist.

In fact, almost one third of all resolutions ever issued by the U.N. from the date of Israel's admittance thereto in 1949 to the present time have focused upon and have been condemnatory of the Jewish State and/or Zionism -- the latter constituting the supranational political movement of the Jewish people which was not only endorsed and encouraged by the League of Nations in its Mandate for Palestine, but which continues to embody the philosophical and legal underpinnings of the present-day State of Israel until this very Day. Moreover, in recent years, the percentage of U.N. resolutions targeting Israel has dramatically increased. A study conducted by the German newspaper “Bild” found that, in the period 2016 - 2017, of all U.N. General Assembly resolutions directed against a specific country, 77% (in 2016) and 78% (in 2017) of those resolutions were directed against the Jewish State. Furthermore, a review of all condemnatory resolutions ever issued by the U.N. reveals the fact that Israel has been the target of more condemnatory U.N. resolutions than all other member States combined.

By way of example, on November 10, 1975, the U.N. issued its infamous General Assembly Resolution no. 3379 (XXX) (entitled “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination”), which demonized Zionism by declaring it to be “a form of racism and racial discrimination” and, thereby, objectively Evil. As Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and constitutes the philosophical basis for the reestablishment of Israel, the transparent purpose of this U.N. Resolution was to repudiate the moral foundations upon which the Jewish State was resurrected. It hardly seems coincidental that this Resolution was issued, at the behest of the international community, on the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht -- this being the first mass assault organized by Nazi Germany against the Jewish people, during which tens of thousands of Jews were beaten or murdered, as their businesses and homes were confiscated or destroyed, and their synagogues and Torah scrolls were burned to the ground, thereby heralding the incipiency of the Holocaust.

In a candid admission that it is incapable of creating an original idea, the U.N. explicitly noted in its Resolution the prior demand by the World Conference of the International Women’s Year for “the elimination of … Zionism …”, the prior labeling by the Organization of African Unity of Israel as “… the racist regime in occupied Palestine …” and the prior condemnation by the Non-Aligned Movement of “… Zionism as a threat to World peace and security …” as a predicate for its own determination that Zionism -- the international Jewish liberation movement which had been endorsed by the League of Nations in 1920 and by the United Nations in 1947 -- constituted “a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

Moreover, the text of this Resolution makes it abundantly clear that the Arab and larger (non-Arab) Muslim World’s dispute with Israel has nothing to do with the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” of 1967 (because the text omits any reference thereof), and everything to do with Israel’s existence as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Alternatively stated, the text of this Resolution demonstrates that the international War against Israel has always been existential rather than a mere boundary line disagreement.

This Resolution states, in full, as follows:

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3379 (XXX) Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

RECALLING its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that “any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous” and its expression of alarm at “the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the World, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures”,

RECALLING ALSO that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism,

TAKING NOTE of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that “international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination”,

TAKING NOTE ALSO of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered “that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being”,

TAKING NOTE ALSO of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned Zionism as a threat to World peace and security, and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,

DETERMINES that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

2400^th plenary meeting

10 November 1975

The prior year -- seemingly in preparation for, and in tandem with, its subsequent demonization of Israel -- the U.N. had earlier both legitimized and honored the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was then openly engaged in a campaign of terrorism against Israel and Diaspora Jewry. The U.N. accomplished these objectives by

(1) inviting P.L.O. leader Yasser Arafat to address the opening session of the U.N. at its main headquarters in New York City, and

(2) granting Permanent Observer status to the P.L.O. (per U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3237 (XXIX) of November 22, 1974, entitled “Observer status for the Palestine Liberation Organization”).

Significantly, by 1974, the P.L.O. -- the fount of modern global terrorism -- had already accumulated more Jewish blood on its hands than had any other Reprobate since Nazi Germany. Despite the foregoing, this terrorist organization was soon permitted to establish a worldwide “diplomatic” infrastructure through the establishment of (official and unofficial) “embassies” in virtually every country, including the United States.

Moreover, the U.N. itself has thereupon established a well-funded official infrastructure for this terrorist organization’s benefit via the creation of the following 22 “Palestinian” advocacy entities, positions, committees, agenda items, events, and publications:

1. Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (which consists of three U.N. member States appointed by the President of the U.N. General Assembly, reporting directly to the U.N. Secretary General concerning, inter alia, Israel’s “violation of human rights in Arab territories occupied by Israel” and Israel’s “disregard of fundamental freedoms and human rights in occupied territories”, per preambular subparagraphs (a) and (b) of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 2443 (XXIII) of December 19, 1968, entitled “Respect for and implementation of human rights in occupied territories”);

2. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (which, inter alia, issues periodic recommendations to the U.N. General Assembly on achieving the “inalienable rights” of the “Palestinian people”, and which constitutes the only Committee in the U.N. system dedicated exclusively to the agenda of a single group);

3. Division for Palestinian Rights (which is a special consultative unit established within the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat, and which constitutes the only Secretariat unit in the U.N. system dedicated exclusively to the agenda of a single group);

4. International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (which is observed annually on November 29, in lamentation over the issuance of the U.N.'s Palestine Partition Plan on that very date in 1947, and in sympathetic commemoration of the rejection by the recognized leadership of the “Palestinian” Arabs of the Plan's recommendation for the creation of a Jewish State alongside an Arab State therein);

5. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (whose acronym is “UNRWA”, which agency was created for the sole purpose of administering international assistance to the “Palestinian” Arab “refugee” population exclusively, while international assistance to all other refugee populations in the World -- without exception -- are administered by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (whose acronym is “UNHCR”), meaning that UNRWA's 28,000 employees assist more than 5 million “Palestinian refugees”, comprised of approximately 30,000 living departees and their foreign-born descendants, including adopted children (whether or not such adoptees are themselves “Palestinian”), in 5 places (i.e., 3 countries, namely, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and 2 territories, namely, the “West Bank” and Gaza), while UNHCR must suffice with only 6,300 employees who must assist approximately 55 million non-”Palestinian” refugees in approximately 110 countries; moreover, UNRWA allocates to each “Palestinian refugee” four times the amount of financial aid that UNHCR allocates to each non-“Palestinian” refugee; yet, the latter has resettled more than 50,000,000 refugees, while the former has resettled none);

6. Assistance to the Palestinian People Unit (which, as a unit of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, has been assigned a “specific mandate to monitor and investigate the social and economic impact of policies of the Israeli occupation authorities in the Palestinian territory” per the website of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development);

7. United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory (which, as a unit of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, periodically publicizes Israel’s “violations” of the “rights” of the “Palestinian” Arabs);

8. United Nations Human Rights Council’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied by Israel since 1967” (who produces an annual report detailing Israel’s “atrocities” against the “Palestinian” Arabs, thereby rendering the “Palestinians” the only group in favor of which, and Israel the only country against which, the UNHRC has appointed a permanent investigator);

9. United Nations Human Rights Council’s Agenda Item 7, entitled “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories” (which constitutes an anti-Israel fest at each and every session of the UNHRC, thereby rendering Israel the only country in the World against which the UNHRC has dedicated a permanent agenda item);

10. United Nations Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for the Coordination of the International Assistance to Palestinians (which solicits worldwide funding for the Palestinian Authority, which is an instrumentality of the Palestine Liberation Organization);

11. Office of the Quartet, comprising the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia, which (per the heading appearing on every page of its website) is tasked with: “Supporting the Palestinian people to build the institutions and economy of a viable, peaceful state in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem”;

12. Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (which (1) as a field office established under the auspices of the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat, serves as the Personal Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General to the Palestine Liberation Organization and to the Palestinian Authority as well as the Envoy of the Secretary-General to the Office of the Quartet, and (2) through its “Coordinator for Humanitarian and Development Activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, leads the U.N. country team for “Palestine”, consisting of 21 U.N. agencies providing assistance to the “Palestinians”);

13. United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (which is a U.N. archive containing U.N. and non-U.N. pronouncements on the “Question of Palestine”, established by the U.N.’s Division for Palestinian Rights, that seeks to delegitimize the Jewish people’s sovereign right to the Land of Israel in order to pressure the State of Israel into permitting the creation of a hostile P.L.O.-controlled State therein, to be known as “Palestine”);

14. United Nations Register of Damage caused by the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (which register was created to catalogue the “damage claims” accumulated by the “Palestinians” against Israel on account of the latter’s construction of a security barrier (90% of which is a sensor fence) to prevent “Palestinian” suicide bombers and other terrorists from perpetuating atrocities against Jewish population centers located within Israel proper);

15. United Nations Human Rights Council’s “database of companies profiting from the Occupation” published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (commonly known as the “UNHRC Blacklist”), listing those companies that have allegedly facilitated the creation and maintenance of Jewish communities in the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (which database seeks to stigmatize and thereby financially ruin the companies identified therein);

16. United Nations Human Rights Council’s permanent commission of inquiry against Israel, to wit: “… ongoing independent international commission of inquiry, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council, to investigate in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel all alleged violations of international humanitarian law and all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law …” (per operative paragraph 1 of UNHRC Resolution no. A/HRC/S-30/L.1 of May 27, 2021), which will render Israel the only State to ever be made subject to a UNHRC open-ended permanent commission of inquiry;

17. Ad hoc Conciliation Commission of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is tasked with evaluating allegations of “racial discrimination” submitted by the “State of Palestine” against Israel (per Articles 11 & 12 of Part II of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 2106 (XX) of December 21, 1965, despite the exemption in Article 2 of Part I thereof, which states, in full, as follows: “This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and noncitizens.”);

18. United Nations Security Council’s monthly meeting on the situation in the Middle East (which primarily focuses on the Jewish State’s alleged violations of international law);

19. United Nations Security Council’s quarterly open debate (in which any U.N. member State, U.N.-accredited observer delegation and U.N-accredited NGO may participate) under the agenda item labeled as “the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question” (which also primarily focuses on the Jewish State’s alleged violations of international law), thereby, together with its monthly meeting on the Middle East, giving the UNSC one opportunity every month and two opportunities every three months to publicly bash the Jewish State;

20. United Nations General Assembly’s ritualistic annual issuance, during each Fall session of the UNGA, in proximity to the annual celebration of the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people” on November 29, of approximately 20 anti-Israel resolutions, which mostly regurgitate the contents of the prior Fall session’s package of anti-Israel resolutions;

21. United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 67/19 of November 29, 2012 (being the 65^th anniversary of the “Palestine Partition Plan”), entitled “Status of Palestine in the United Nations”, which resolution essentially recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization as being the “State of Palestine” for all purposes of the U.N. system except for formal U.N. membership -- despite that fact that the P.L.O. meets none of the requirements of international law (as set forth in Article 1 of the “Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States” of December 26, 1933) for achieving that legal status; and

22. Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator, who is appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General, and who oversees the provision of international aid to Gaza (per operative paragraph 4 of U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 2720 of December 22, 2023, entitled “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”).

The U.N. has permitted its “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” to grant U.N. accreditation to NGOs that ostensibly avow a human rights agenda, but, in reality, expend virtually all of their resources to demonize the Jewish State under the imprimatur of the United Nations. Such U.N. accreditation has allowed these NGOs to savage the Jewish State via the official websites of myriad U.N. specialized agencies and affiliated organizations, as well as through the U.N.’s many conferences and publications. For example, in March 2010 (just before the Passover holiday that year), the United Nations Human Rights Council permitted the Libya-created and U.N.-accredited NGO known as “The International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination” to post an allegation on the UNHRC website that Israel habitually kidnaps and murders “Palestinians” for the purpose of harvesting and selling their internal organs -- a blood libel reminiscent of the claim that Jews used to ritually murder Gentile children in order to use their blood as an essential ingredient in the creation of Passover matzah. And, in March 2012, after promoting the event on its website, the United Nations Human Rights Council permitted the Sudan-created and U.N.-accredited NGO known as “The Ma’arij Foundation for Peace and Development” to invite a “human rights” spokesman for the terrorist organization Hamas to give a speech at the Geneva headquarters of the United Nations in which he accused Israel of perpetrating genocide against the “Palestinians”. The U.N. has even permitted its “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” to create an official “NGO Network on the Question of Palestine” in order to efficiently coordinate the activities of these anti-Israel NGOs. In furtherance of this goal, the U.N. has authorized its “Division for Palestinian Rights” to publish a U.N. newsletter known as “NGO Action News”, that is hosted on the website of the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine, which publicizes the declarations and activities of these anti-Israel NGOs.

Many of these anti-Israel NGOs are linked to terrorist organizations. For example, Addameer, Bisan Center, Al-Haq, the Alternative Information Center, the Defense for Children International – Palestine, the Health Work Committee, Stop the Wall, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees, and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees -- all of which receive funding from the United Nations and/or the European Union and/or individual States and/or international charities -- are staffed by terrorists from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Ironically but unsurprisingly, some of these PFLP-linked NGOs (e.g., Addameer and Al-Haq) collaborated with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the creation of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s “database of companies profiting from the Occupation” (commonly known as the “UNHRC Blacklist”), which was released in February 2020. Absurdly, the UNHRC Blacklist targets not only those companies that provide goods and services primarily to the Jewish residents of the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, but also those companies that provide essential services (e.g., potable water, natural gas and electricity) to all of the residents of those territories.

Furthermore, on or about November 29 of each year, in an annual ritual which serves as a continuing Act of Contrition for its endorsement of Jewish statehood on that date in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly issues approximately 20 resolutions condemning the State of Israel. In this way, the U.N. publicly repudiates its Palestine Partition Plan each and every year. For example, on or about November 29, 2014, the UN General Assembly passed 20 resolutions that explicitly condemned Israel, but -- during that entire year -- only four resolutions that explicitly or implicitly criticized other States (namely, one each relating to North Korea, Iran, Syria and Ukraine).

Moreover, in a brilliant but perverse scheme to forever maintain the existence of a large “refugee” population and to forever depict Israel in the worst possible light, the U.N. has permitted its United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) to deviate from the standard definition of “refugee” under Article 1 of Chapter I of the United Nations Refugee Convention (formally entitled the “Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly Resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950”), which is administered by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”), by employing a unique definition of “refugee” -- which has never been applied to any other displaced population in the World -- to encompass not only those “Palestinian” Arabs who actually departed Israel before or during its War of Independence, but, as well -- automatically -- all of such refugees’ foreign-born descendants, including adopted children (whether or not such adoptees are themselves “Palestinians”). By automatically allowing non-refugee progeny and non-refugee adoptees of “Palestinian refugees” to inherit refugee status, the United Nations has caused the present “Palestinian refugee” population to be officially numbered at more than 5,000,000 people as of 2020 (which number will necessarily increase over time, as it is based upon perpetual multigenerational expansion -- and it does so at the approximated rate of 10,000 per month), rather than at its more accurate number of approximately 30,000 living departees as of 2020 (which number will necessarily decrease over time as this population continues to age and die).

However, even that smaller number inflates the number of actual refugees, as determined by the standard definition of a refugee utilized by the United Nations Refugee Convention and UNHCR, which -- in the case of the “Palestinians” -- would encompass only those presently-living “Palestinians” who departed Israel shortly before or during its War of Independence and who have not been permanently resettled elsewhere (plus, in exceptional cases, some of the descendants of those refugees). This is because -- while UNHCR is mandated to prepare its refugee populations for (1) repatriation, (2) resettlement in situ, or (3) resettlement in other States -- UNRWA is mandated to prepare its “refugee” population exclusively for repatriation to an unaccepting State, namely, Israel -- a mandate ensuring that UNRWA will continue to be used by the U.N. system as one of its many weapons against the Jewish State.

For, so fanatical is UNRWA about its repatriation mandate that, in a huge deviation from the international norm, UNRWA refuses to deregister the

(1) approximately 2,000,000 “Palestinian refugees” who reside in Jordan as Jordanian citizens, and

(2) approximately 2,000,000 “Palestinian refugees” who already reside in their internationally-recognized “homeland” (i.e., within the boundaries of the U.N. General Assembly-recognized “State of Palestine”, to wit: the “West Bank” and Gaza).

Such a deregistration would reduce the swollen number of UNRWA-registered “Palestinian refugees” by 80%. By extrapolation, this means that, as of 2020, the actual number of “Palestinian refugees” who would qualify as refugees under the UNHCR definition is approximately 6,000 living departees (i.e., 30,000 living departees x .20, being the extrapolated percentage of those approximated living departees who neither reside in Jordan as Jordanian citizens nor reside in the “West Bank” and Gaza), rather than approximately 5,000,000 people -- and increasing.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, it can be argued that even the 6,000 “Palestinian” departees who have lived in places other than Jordan, the “West Bank” and Gaza from 1948 to the present time (e.g., in Lebanon and in Syria) have -- despite the strident denials of their host governments -- been de facto permanently resettled in situ in those States in which they have resided since 1948, meaning that the number of authentic “Palestinian refugees” -- according to the UNHCR definition -- is actually zero.

Consequently, UNRWA exists only to perpetuate rather than to resolve the issue of “Palestinian refugees”. This is precisely the reason why UNHCR has resettled more than 50,000,000 refugees, while UNRWA has resettled none. Moreover, the preservation of the alleged “Palestinian refugee” crisis and the multigenerational increase in the number of “Palestinian refugees” is financially convenient for the U.N.-appointed leadership of UNRWA, as that organization enjoys a huge annual budget of one billion dollars (approximately 70% of which was funded by the United States in 2023), which it is loath to forego.

UNRWA was created in order to implement one provision of nonbinding General Assembly Resolution no. 194 (III) of December 11, 1948 (document no. A/RES/194 (III), entitled “Palestine - progress report of the United Nations Mediator”), which, at Section 11 thereof, demands that Israel allow entry of the irredentist and revanchist “Palestinian refugee” population into the small territory of Israel proper (i.e., Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines). Since, as of 2020, the international community numbers this hostile population at more than 5 million people, Israel’s compliance with this demand as well as the corollary demand that Israel must bestow citizenship on these new immigrants would soon lead to the Jewish State’s demise via a combination of Demography and War. Section 11 of that Resolution states, in full, as follows:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

The global call for Israel to permit the entry of these belligerents and their multigenerational descendants and adoptees stands in stark contrast to the lack of any call, by the U.N. or any lesser international organization, for the Czech Republic and Poland to permit the re-entry of millions of ethnic Germans (let alone their multigenerational descendants and/or adoptees) who, from 1945 to 1947, were expelled from their respective ancestral homelands in the Sudetenland region of former Czechoslovakia (approximately 3,000,000 expelled) and Silesia region of Poland (approximately 3,500,000 expelled); and these ethnic Germans were not even expelled during the chaos of World War II, but only after that conflict had already terminated.

Furthermore, by continuing to insist that the worldwide “Palestinian” diaspora pour into Israel proper rather than into a nascent “State of Palestine”, the “Palestinians” have continued to belie and subvert their self-declared raison d’être for the creation of such a sovereign entity, namely, that the imperative needs of a homeless “Palestinian people” require that a separate and distinct nation-state be set aside for them. In fact, so dedicated is the P.L.O. to its demand that millions of hostile “Palestinians” be permitted to immigrate, as of right, to the Jewish State that it has declared that

(1) the future “State of Palestine” will refuse entry to expatriate “Palestinian refugees” (i.e., those “Palestinians” presently residing in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere outside of “Palestine”), meaning that they must continue to reside outside of “Palestine”; and

(2) the future “State of Palestine” will neither grant citizenship nor issue passports nor provide other governmental services (e.g., housing, healthcare, food, education, etc.) to “Palestinian refugees” already residing in “Palestine” (including those born and continuously domiciled in the “West Bank” or Gaza), meaning that more than 40% of the already-resident population of the future “State of Palestine” will continue to be stateless, will continue to be completely dependent upon aid from international organizations (e.g., UNRWA), and will continue to be held in apartheid conditions -- unless and until they are permitted to emigrate from “Palestine” to Israel -- and are thereupon granted citizenship by the latter State.

Of course, exceptions to this harsh policy have already been made (and will continue to be made) for influential “Palestinian refugees”, such as P.L.O. Chairman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who was born in Safed, Israel). Of course, unlike ordinary “Palestinian refugees”, he will be entitled to citizenship and the full range of governmental services in a future “State of Palestine”.

By means of this subterfuge, denominated as the “right of return”, the “Palestinians” thereby seek the eventual existence of, not one “Palestinian” State, but rather three (or, under present circumstances, four) “Palestinian” States, namely, (1) the preexisting “Palestinian”-majority Jordan, (2) a new State to be called “Palestine” (which new State -- due to the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the Palestinian Authority rules portions of the “West Bank”, while its rival Hamas rules Gaza -- will actually comprise two separate “Palestines”) and (3) a “Palestinian”-inundated Israel. Furthermore, the “State of Palestine” would constitute the 22^nd -- or, under present circumstances, the 22^nd and 23^rd -- Arab State(s) in the World.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the very demand for such a “right of return” eviscerates the blood libel that Israel is an Apartheid State, which is perpetrating genocide and ethnic cleansing against the “Palestinians”. For, if Israel were actually committing the horrible crimes of which it is habitually accused, then the “Palestinian” leadership would have surely ceased demanding in every international forum that its “refugees” be permitted to immigrate to the Jewish State.

It is both ironic and hypocritical that, although the Arab World and its allies now demand that Israel comply with this nonbinding Resolution, at the time of the Resolution’s enactment every Arab State which was then a member of the United Nations (namely, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen) voted against it -- presumably due to their collective rejection of the Resolution’s explicit demand, as set forth in Sections 7 & 8 thereof, that the holy sites of Bethlehem and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, then occupied by a fellow Arab State (i.e., Transjordan), be placed under U.N. control. So, to be more precise -- as Bethlehem is presently governed by the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine”, and as the eastern portion of Jerusalem is treated by the international community as if it belongs to the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine”-- the international community seeks only partial compliance with this nonbinding Resolution, namely, compliance by Israel with Section 11 thereof (which provision poses grave demographic and security threats to Israel’s continued existence), but not compliance by the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” with Sections 7 & 8 thereof.

In effect, the United Nations has created -- via UNRWA and other components of the U.N. system -- a powerful institutional infrastructure which demonizes and thereby delegitimizes the one and only Jewish State in the World.

In particular, UNRWA accomplishes this anti-Israel objective by utilizing its elementary-school-through-high-school curricula to inculcate among young “Palestinian refugees” the odious beliefs that Israel is Evil and that achieving martyrdom (i.e., dying while engaged in atrocities against Israel’s Jewish population) in the War against Israel is praiseworthy. Moreover, in Gaza, UNRWA has routinely hired members of Hamas and other Gazan terrorist militias as teachers for the purpose of further poisoning the minds of young students.

Consequently, Israel is the only member State of the United Nations which is confronted by an ongoing institutional campaign against its existence that is being waged and financed (in part from its own membership dues) by that very organization.

Moreover, due to the United Nations’ obsessive attention to the innumerable “Palestinian” grievances against Israel, that premier international organization has virtually ignored the catastrophic events happening elsewhere in the World (to wit: the inter-ethnic genocide, pestilence, flooding, drought and famine happening in sub-Saharan Africa and much of Asia, all of which has adversely affected -- and continues to adversely affect -- hundreds of millions of people).

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization declared Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza to be the “State of Palestine”. Taking its cue from that terrorist group, and in order to make its disdain for the Jewish people’s rights under the Mandate for Palestine even clearer, the U.N. obediently upgraded the official designation of the “Palestinian” diplomatic delegation from the “Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations” to the “Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations”, despite the fact that no such sovereign State then (or has ever) existed.

In 1991, the United States (at the direction of President George H.W. Bush) coerced Israel into attending the multi-session Madrid Peace Conference, during which “Palestinians” (including members of the P.L.O.) were incorporated into the Jordanian delegation. That process eventually resulted in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, sponsored by the United States (at the direction of President William Clinton). These negotiations spawned a series of interim agreements (from 1993 through 1999), two of these being commonly known as the “Oslo Accords” (often labeled as “Oslo I” and “Oslo II”), which, inter alia, established and bestowed Israeli legitimacy upon the autonomous Palestinian Authority as an instrumentality of the P.L.O., and effectuated the possessory transfer by Israel to the Palestinian Authority of 42% of Judea & Samaria (containing 98% of the Arab population thereof) and of 80% of Gaza (containing virtually 100% of the Arab population thereof).

Per the “Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip dated September 28, 1995” (commonly known as “Oslo II”), at Chapter 2 (entitled “Redeployment and Security Arrangements”), Article XI (entitled “Land”), for purposes of transitional governance pending a final settlement of the conflict, Judea & Samaria were divided by Israel and the P.L.O. into three territorial units:

(1) Area A, in which the Palestinian Authority would exercise civil rule over the population and security oversight with respect to that territory;

(2) Area B, in which the Palestinian Authority would exercise civil rule over the population, and in which Israel would exercise security oversight with respect to that territory; and

(3) Area C (which hosts all of the Jewish communities and some of the Arab communities of Judea & Samaria) in which Israel would exercise military rule with civil components over the population and security oversite with respect to that territory).

It is noteworthy that nowhere in any of these interim agreements did Israel agree to restrict the expansion or construction of Jewish communities located in the eastern portion of Jerusalem or in Area C of Judea & Samaria. Nor in any of these interim agreements did the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority agree to restrict the expansion or construction of Arab communities located in Areas A & B of Judea & Samaria. Instead, the fate of the Jewish communities located in these areas was declared to be one of the “permanent status issues”, which were identified in Oslo II as:

5. … Jerusalem, [“Palestinian”] refugees, [Jewish] settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest to be negotiated between the parties.

(Oslo II, Chapter 5 (entitled “Miscellaneous Provisions”), Article XXXI (entitled “Final Clauses”), paragraph 5)

Alternatively stated, per Oslo II, Israel and the P.L.O. agreed that Israel would continue to possess jurisdiction over all of Area C and Jerusalem, including the Jewish communities located therein, pending a final settlement of the conflict. Despite this, with funding from the European Union and several E.U. States, the P.L.O. has, without permission from Israel, been illegally transferring portions of the population that it rules in Areas A & B to Area C, and it has also, without permission from Israel, been illegally constructing Arab settlements there for their transferred population. The P.L.O. has been doing this in order to surround, isolate and terrorize the Jewish communities of Area C in hopes that the residents thereof will eventually abandon their communities to the control of the P.L.O. Of course, all the foregoing activities of the P.L.O. violate Oslo II, which preserved Israel’s absolute jurisdiction in all of Area C.

Furthermore, nowhere in any of these interim agreements did Israel and the P.L.O. agree that the outcome of permanent status negotiations would be the creation of a 22^nd Arab State -- let alone one that would comprise 100% of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

Moreover, nowhere in any of these interim agreements is the possibility of establishing an Arab State in Judea and/or Samaria and/or the eastern portion of Jerusalem even mentioned.

Tellingly, although the P.L.O. (as well as many international organizations and much of the World’s media) refers to its Oslo Accords-created government as the “Palestinian National Authority” -- thereby alleging that the Accords implicitly conceded the creation of a “State of Palestine” as the final outcome of permanent status negotiations -- nowhere in the Oslo Accords is the P.L.O.-controlled government denominated either as the “Palestinian National Authority” or the “National Authority”. Instead, whenever mentioned in the Oslo Accords, the P.L.O.-controlled government is denominated exclusively as the “Palestinian Authority” (e.g., Oslo I, Annex II, paragraph 3b & paragraph 5; and Oslo II, Chapter I, Article I & Article II)

Moreover, Oslo II makes it clear that, in the absence of a permanent status agreement, none of the territorial concessions made by Israel to the P.L.O. in Oslo II are permanent or otherwise irrevocable, to wit:

6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP [“Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements dated September 13, 1993”, commonly known as “Oslo I”]. Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.

(Oslo II, Chapter 5, Article XXXI, paragraph 6)

The above paragraph is consistent with Oslo I, which states:

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.

(Oslo I, Article V, paragraph 4)

However, notwithstanding the nonbinding nature of Israel’s territorial concessions to the P.L.O., by providing the latter with a territorial base adjacent to Jewish population centers and by permitting the creation of a de facto “Palestinian” army (which was officially, but falsely, labeled as a civilian police force) within the transferred territories, Israel itself thereby facilitated an unprecedented wave of murder and mayhem by various “Palestinian” terrorist groups led by or cooperating with the P.L.O. against Israel’s Jewish population centers from 2000 to 2005 (commonly known as the “Second Intifada”), which constituted a resurgence of the “Palestinian” violence experienced by Israel in the pre-Olso period from 1987 to 1993 (commonly known as the “First Intifada”).

Unsurprisingly, this P.L.O.-initiated terror campaign blatantly violated a central principle of the Oslo Accords, namely, the P.L.O.’s official renunciation of its self-perceived right to perpetuate “terrorism and other acts of violence” against the Jewish State. Below is the full text of that official renunciation:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat

Chairman

The Palestine Liberation Organization

However, the P.L.O. never intended to abide by the Oslo Accords, as its leadership had no intention of ever concluding a peace treaty with Israel, and it instead had every intention of utilizing the territory-transfer provisions of Oslo II to strengthen itself and to thereby facilitate the continuation of its genocidal war against the Jewish State.

For example, as P.L.O. chairman Yasser Arafat initially explained:

“The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me -- the Land which had been blessed for the whole world. Now after this agreement you have to understand our main battle. Our main battle is Jerusalem! Jerusalem! The first shrine of the Moslems. … This agreement [i.e., Oslo I], I am not considering it more [binding] than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Mohammed and Quraish. …”

(excerpts of speech given by Yasser Arafat at a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa on May 10, 1994)

In that speech, Arafat alluded to the infamous “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah” of 628 CE between Mohammed and the leadership of the pagan Quraish tribe, which then controlled Mecca. The Treaty was accepted by Mohammed because his Muslim army was too weak at that time to conquer Mecca. Although the term of the Treaty was 10 years, Mohammed violated the Treaty after only 18 months when he determined that his army was strong enough to conquer Mecca, after which it invaded the city and massacred the Quraish tribe. Consequently, in that speech, Arafat -- viewing himself as a present-day Mohammed -- was informing his Muslim audience that he had accepted Oslo I due only to the P.L.O.’s inability at that time to conquer Israel and annihilate its Jewish population, but that the P.L.O. would repudiate the agreement and proceed to implement its genocidal plans as soon as it was strong enough to do so.

As P.A. Minister of Supplies Abd al-Azis Shahin subsequently explained:

“The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo Accords as a first step and not as a permanent settlement, based on the premise that the war and struggle in the Land [of “occupied Palestine”] is more efficient than a struggle from a distant Land [i.e., Tunisia, to which the P.L.O. leadership had been expelled by Israel from Lebanon prior to the Oslo Accords]. …The Palestinian people will continue the Revolution until they achieve the goals of the ‘65 revolution [i.e., the first P.L.O. terror attack against Israel, which occurred on January 1, 1965]. …”

(excerpts of interview with Abd al-Azis Shahin in Bahrain-based al-Ayam newspaper on May 30, 2000)

As P.A. Deputy Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs Ziyad Abu Ein subsequently explained:

“[The] Oslo [Accords] is the effective and potent greenhouse which embraced the Palestinian Resistance. Without Oslo, there would never have been Resistance. In all the occupied territories, [prior to the Oslo Accords] we could not move a single pistol from place to place. Without Oslo and without being armed through Oslo … we would not have been able to create this great Palestinian Intifada.”

(excerpts of interview with Ziyad Abu Ein in Iran-based al-Alam television on July 4, 2006)

As Fatah Central Committee member Sultan Abu al-Einein subsequently explained:

“The weapons that were used against the Israeli enemy in Gaza and in other places were brought [into “occupied Palestine”] in accordance with the [Oslo] Accords. When we refer to the negative aspects of the Oslo Accords, we should also look at their other [positive] aspects.”

(except of interview with Sultan Abu al-Einein in al-Quds satellite television network on April 6, 2009)

Yet, despite the thousands of casualties suffered by Israel in the P.L.O.’s Second Intifada, Israel did not cancel the Oslo Accords. Instead, due to the P.L.O.’s overt hostility to Israel and its serial violations of the Accords, Israel suspended the transfer of any further territory in Area C of Judea & Samaria to the P.L.O.

Moreover, by permitting the creation of and conferring its recognition upon this hostile Arab entity, and by transferring territory thereto, Israel also enabled the creation of a virtually-unbreakable patronage relationship between the United States and the Palestinian Authority (as well as between the European Union and the P.A.), legitimized international funding of the P.A. (amounting to many billions of dollars since 1994), and facilitated an ever more successful diplomatic onslaught against itself by the P.A. masquerading as the “Occupied State of Palestine”. During times of “Palestinian” aggression and Israeli countermeasures, that patronage relationship has resulted

(1) at best, in nonjudgmental diplomatic statements by the U.S. and/or the E.U. expressing concern over the “cycle of violence”, thereby creating a false moral equivalency between “Palestinian” aggression and Israeli countermeasures; and

(2) at worse, in condemnatory diplomatic statements by the U.S. and/or the E.U. against Israel for too aggressively defending itself.

Although, prior to the creation of the Oslo Accords, almost 100 nations had already accorded diplomatic recognition to the territory-bereft P.L.O. as the “Occupied State of Palestine”, the subsequent creation of the territory-controlling P.L.O. has enabled many more nations to diplomatically justify doing so. Ironically, due to the fact that the P.L.O., prior to the Oslo Accords, was not a State under international law, and due to the fact that the Oslo Accords neither transformed nor intended to transform the P.L.O. into a State under international law, the Oslo Accords prohibited the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority from exercising any

5. a. … powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions and posts or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the appointment of or admission of diplomatic and consular staff, and the exercise of diplomatic functions.

(Oslo II, Chapter 1, Article IX, paragraph 5a)

Of course, the P.L.O. promptly violated this provision of Oslo II by continuing to denominate itself as the “State of Palestine”, by obtaining U.N. General Assembly recognition as the “State of Palestine”, by joining international organizations as the “State of Palestine” (e.g., UNESCO, Interpol, the International Criminal Court, etc.), and by establishing “State of Palestine” embassies throughout the World and hosting foreign embassies and/or accrediting foreign diplomats to the “State of Palestine” in the “West Bank”.

Two notable achievements in the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic war against Israel were the illegal admission of the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” to a U.N.-affiliated organization -- the “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization” (whose acronym is “UNESCO”) -- as a “member State” thereof in October 2011 and the subsequent upgrading by the U.N. of the diplomatic status of the P.L.O. qua “Palestine” from the “Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine” to the “Non-Member Observer State of Palestine” in November 2012 per its overwhelming approval of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 67/19, entitled “Status of Palestine in the United Nations” (with 138 member States voting “in favour”, 9 member States voting “against”, 41 member States voting “abstain”, and 5 member States being “absent”), thereby granting to that umbrella terrorist group the same diplomatic status as was previously granted to Vatican City (formally known as the “Holy See”). Although still denied membership in the U.N. (due to the P.L.O.’s inability to obtain the votes of the required supermajority in the U.N. Security Council), this upgraded status nonetheless has enabled the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” to subsequently be admitted to all U.N.-affiliated organizations as a voting member thereof. While, in 2011, UNESCO chose to violate its own charter in order to permit membership to an entity not yet recognized as a State by the U.N., the P.L.O.’s subsequent upgrade in diplomatic status from a Mission to a State removed that legal obstacle.

Consequently, in 2015, this status upgrade enabled the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” to become a party to the treaty that created the U.N.-affiliated “International Criminal Court” (which treaty is formally entitled the “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”, created by U.N. document A/CONF.183/9 of July 17, 1998, but is commonly known as the “Rome Statute”). Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court has arrogated to itself the authority to indict, extradite, try, convict and imprison, not only any person residing within any signatory State to the Treaty, but -- (per Rome Statute, Part 5, Article 13) if a complaint is submitted (a) by any signatory State to the Treaty, or (b) by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, or (c) by the Prosecutor of the Court -- also any person residing within any non-signatory State (e.g., Israel), for that person’s alleged perpetration (per Rome Statute, Part 2, Article 5, Paragraph 1) of “the crime of genocide”, or “crimes against humanity”, or “war crimes”, or “the crime of aggression” that allegedly took place within the territory of any signatory State.

Inter alia, this means that, by recognizing the P.L.O. as a State, the United Nations has enabled a terrorist group (and any of the latter’s signatory-State allies) to invoke the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to indict, extradite, try, convict and imprison, not only the Jewish State’s political and military leaders for allegedly committing a plethora of “crimes” in the “State of Palestine”, but also each and every Jewish resident of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem for the passive activity of merely living in their homes (as they are accomplices to and beneficiaries of the criminalized settlement activities authorized by Israeli government officials). The foregoing assertion is not exaggerated, as the Rome Statute’s definition of “war crimes” includes the following:

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

(Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Part 2, Article 8(2)(b)(viii))

Based upon the fallacious consensus by virtually the entire World that Israel is occupying “Palestine”, the insertion of the ambiguous phrase “directly or indirectly” into Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of 1998, which phrase does not appear in paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, was intended to criminalize any facilitation by Israeli citizens of Jewish relocation to and/or residency in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (as well as in Gaza and the Golan Heights), such as a decision by government officials not to prevent Jews from voluntarily relocating thereto. However, perhaps more importantly, the insertion of this phrase into the “war crimes” definitional section of the Rome Statute also represents an implicit acknowledgment by the international community that the language of paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not bar Israel -- even if it were occupying “Palestine” -- from facilitating the voluntary relocation of Jews thereto. Tellingly, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute criminalizes only the transfer (whether direct or indirect) by officials of the Occupying Power of its citizens into captured territory. Neither this provision nor any other provision of the Rome Statute makes it an additional war crime for officials of the Occupying Power to permit its citizens to construct residential and/or commercial buildings in such territory for the use of those citizens. However, that has not prevented all components of the U.N. system and virtually all States from claiming that, per Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute, the existence of Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem constitute a war crime.

It bears mentioning two other differences between the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute. Firstly, the Fourth Geneva Convention is directed at the conduct of signatory States, while the Rome Statute is directed at the conduct of individuals (which may include both political and military officials) with respect to the territory of a signatory State. Secondly, the Fourth Geneva Convention contains no criminal sanctions for the violation of its rules, while the Rome Statute is predicated upon criminal sanctions for the violations of its rules. So, the Rome Statute is a more potent weapon against Israel than is the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Unsurprisingly, in 2019, the International Criminal Court began a criminal investigation against unidentified Israeli citizens at the request of the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine.

It is noteworthy, that while Israel is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, it (as well as several other countries, including the United States, Russia and China) is not a party to -- and is consequently not bound by --- the Rome Statute. The reason for Israel’s rejection of the Rome Statute was the belief, subsequently proven true, that the International Criminal Court, being a component of the U.N. system, would quickly become as weaponized against the Jewish State as is the remainder of the U.N. system.

Already in January 2013 (based upon the December 2012 complaint issued by the “State of Palestine” to the U.N. Secretary-General and to the U.N. Security Council, which asserted that the very existence of Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem constitutes a prosecutable war crime under the Rome Statute) the “Report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” (document number A/HRC/22/63, commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council) predictably concluded that the existence of Jewish communities and neighborhoods on the eastern side of Israel’s former 1949 armistice demarcation line with Jordan constitutes a war crime (see paragraphs 17 & 104 of the Report).

Moreover, in December 2018, the “Assembly of State Parties of the International Criminal Court” elected a judicial representative of the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” to its eight-member Judicial Selection Committee, meaning that a terrorist organization was granted unprecedented influence over the composition of the Court. This influence is likely to be employed, not only to persuade the Court to prosecute Israeli military and political figures who dare to defend Israel against terrorist attacks emanating from the territory of the fictional “State of Palestine”, but also to prosecute Israelis who dare to reside within that territory.

The foregoing juridical sanitization of this terrorist organization is hardly surprising, as the “General Assembly of Interpol” (which is formally known as the “International Criminal Police Organization” and is the World’s largest international police organization) had earlier -- in September 2017 -- admitted the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” as a member State thereof.

Furthermore, in January 2019, the U.N. General Assembly, in a paean to this terrorist organization, elected Mahmoud Abbas, in his capacity as Chairman of the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine”, as the President of the 134-member organization known as “The Group of 77 and China at the United Nations”, which is the largest bloc of member States in the U.N.

Subsequently, in June 2019, the U.N.-affiliated “International Atomic Energy Agency” (which is the administrator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) accepted the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” as a member State thereof.

Earlier, on November 26, 2013, the U.N. celebrated its prior year’s illusory creation of the “State of Palestine” by issuing General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/68/12, entitled “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People”, which proclaimed 2014 to be the “International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” and requested the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” to organize international activities in furtherance of that proclamation (see Resolution, operative paragraph 9). The first international event in celebration of the “International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” took place at U.N.’s main headquarters in New York City on January 20, 2014, just days before the U.N.’s observance of the “International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust” on January 27, 2014. In honor of the intersection of, and in order to synthesize, these two ostensibly unrelated international events, the U.N. (acting through its “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People”) showcased a film entitled “Where Should The Birds Fly?”, which depicted Israeli soldiers as Nazis intent upon committing genocide against the “Palestinians”.

Earlier, in 1991, as its quid-pro-quo for Israel’s participation in the Madrid Peace Conference, the United States had exerted sufficient economic and diplomatic pressure against both the United Nations and individual member States to convince the U.N. General Assembly to repeal its Antisemitic “Zionism is Racism” Resolution no. 3379 (XXX). In fact, 111 member States out of a then total U.N. membership of 166 states voted for the repeal, representing almost 67% of the General Assembly. Conversely, despite the intense U.S. pressure, one third of the General Assembly rejected the repeal.

Yet, as evidenced by the foregoing as well as by the following, the very sentiment which permeated this repealed U.N. resolution and which caused the U.N. to bestow international diplomatic status upon a terrorist organization dedicated to the Jewish State's annihilation still prevails among most of the membership of the U.N., as is amply evidenced by the post-repeal work product of the U.N., its specialized agencies and affiliated organizations, and its official publications and conferences, such as the misnamed “World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” (held in Durban, South Africa in 2001 under the official auspices of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, predecessor to the U.N. Human Rights Council), during which Zionism and the State of Israel were singled out as the main foci of Evil in the World. Another example of the enduring hostility within the U.N. system towards the very existence of the Jewish State is to be found in the United Nations Development Programme’s “Arab Human Development Report 2004 -- Towards Freedom in the Arab World”, which (at page 12 thereof) partially blames the creation of Israel for the lack of democracy and the suppression of human rights in the Arab World.

Furthermore, although -- from the date of Israel's admittance thereto in May 1949 until the Fall of 2005 -- the U.N. and its myriad components and affiliated organizations have issued reams of resolutions and reports condemning Israel by name for any measure of self-preservation and/or lawful entitlement during this same era, the U.N. system has never condemned by name any nation or terrorist organization for aggressing against Israel or Diaspora Jews. However, in the Fall of 2005, under intense pressure from the United States (at the direction of President George W. Bush), the United Nations Security Council did, for the very first time, and in two separate instances, at least acknowledge genocidal incitement and/or kinetic aggression against the Jewish State.

In the first instance regarding international acknowledgment of a genocidal threat against Israel, on October 26, 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at a government-sponsored conference held in Tehran entitled “A World Without Zionism” enunciated Iran’s intention to annihilate the Jewish State, declaring in salient part:

“The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst. … Very soon, this stain of disgrace will vanish from the center of the Islamic World; and this is attainable. … Our dear Imam [the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the Map, and this was a very wise statement.”

-- at a time when Iran was already in the midst of developing nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (formally entitled the “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” of July 1, 1968), to which treaty Iran is a signatory State.

Subsequently, this genocidal sentiment has been frequently reiterated at the highest levels of the Iranian government and military forces. For example, it was repeated on November 8, 2014 by Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who published (via the “Twitter” social media platform, since renamed as “X”) the following declaration:

“This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.”

In response to the stated goal of one U.N. member State to eradicate another U.N. member State, more than 6 weeks passed after Iran’s annihilationist declaration of October 26, 2005 before the U.N. Security Council finally issued a tepid media statement on the matter that dealt more with Iran’s penchant for denying the prior Nazi-era Holocaust than with its intention to perpetrate a future Islamic-era Holocaust. It is noteworthy that the U.N.’s statement neither condemned Iran (in whose name, and on whose behalf, its President had officially spoken) nor even its President, but only “remarks about Israel” (which were not further described in the U.N. statement); and even these unspecified remarks were gingerly described as being merely “attributed to” the President of Iran rather than as having actually been uttered by him. This lackluster response by the U.N. Security Council is even more troubling when one considers that the Council, by not referring the relevant Iranian leaders to the International Criminal Court for prosecution, had thereby shirked its obligation to enforce the U.N.’s Genocide Convention (formally entitled the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, created via U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 260 (III) of December 9, 1948), to which treaty Iran is a signatory State. Article III of the Genocide Convention states, in salient part, as follows, to wit:

The following acts shall be punishable:

…

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; …

Article IV of the Genocide Convention states as follows:

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Below is the media statement issued by the U.N. Security Council’s Department of Public Information, News and Media Division (identified as U.N. document SC/8576 of December 9, 2005) in response to Iran’s 2005 threat to annihilate Israel:

SECURITY COUNCIL PRESS STATEMENT ON REMARKS BY IRAN ’S PRESIDENT

The following press statement on the remarks by the President of Iran was delivered today by Security Council President Emyr Jones Parry (United Kingdom):

The members of the Security Council condemn the remarks about Israel and the denial of the Holocaust attributed to Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The members of the Security Council fully support the Secretary-General's statement of 8 December, in which he recalled that the General Assembly had recently adopted a resolution rejecting denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, and urged all Member States to educate their populations about the Holocaust. 

The members of the Security Council reaffirm the rights and obligations of the State of Israel as a full and long-standing Member of the United Nations, and reaffirm that, under the United Nations Charter, all Members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.

For information media • not an official record

Unsurprisingly, the U.N. Security Council has rarely condemned Iran’s frequent annihilationist threats against the Jewish State.

Even more egregiously, after Iran and its proxy forces simultaneously and indiscriminately fired more than 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and suicide drones at Israel on April 13, 2024, the U.N. Security Council decided to remain silent. Moreover, the United States (at the direction of President Joseph Biden) publicly demanded that Israel not forcefully respond to the Iranian attack, as it was claimed that such retaliation would escalate the situation, and thereby trigger a regional war. Israel succumbed to that demand by severely restricting its retaliation.

Tellingly, shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2024, being one day after Iranian President Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi (who had authorized the detention, torture, and extrajudicial executions of more than 5,000 political dissidents in his former role as an Iranian judicial official, thereby earning him the moniker: “the Butcher of Tehran”) died in a helicopter crash, the U.N. Security Council held a moment of silence as an expression of its condolences, with all members thereof (including the U.S. Ambassador) standing with bowed heads. In addition, the Spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued a media statement on behalf of Guterres expressing his “sincere condolences to the families of the deceased and to the Government and people of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Predictably, the foregoing lack of international response, coupled with the U.S. insistence that Israel not forcefully retaliate, led Iran to repeat its April 2024 onslaught by firing more than 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, 2024. Again, the U.N. Security Council decided to remain silent. Again, the United States (at the direction of President Joseph Biden) publicly demanded that Israel not forcefully respond to the Iranian attack, as it was again claimed that such retaliation would escalate the situation, and thereby trigger a regional war.

Moreover, the U.S. thereupon promised to provide Israel with everything that it needed to intercept Iranian, Gazan, Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian, and Yemeni missiles, but nothing that it needed to counterattack Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen in retaliation for their attacks. The stated reason for this policy was the need to prevent a regional war between Israel and its genocidal adversaries. Consequently, this policy was designed to maintain an equilibrium between the Jewish State and those adversaries, thereby guarantying the continuation of the Iranian-sponsored multifront war of attrition against Israel. The only rational explanation for such a policy is that the U.S. did not want Israel either to win or to lose that war of attrition, thereby rendering the Jewish State dependent upon the U.S. for its defensive military needs in perpetuity, and consequently subjugating Israeli decision-making to U.S. foreign policy objectives in perpetuity.

It is telling that U.S. fears of a regional war have always been focused on preventing or minimizing Israel's response to genocidal aggression rather than on preventing that aggression or punishing the perpetrators or enablers thereof. Furthermore, it has always been ludicrous for the U.S. to warn Israel against igniting a regional war that was already being waged due to Iran's direct and proxy attacks against the Jewish State.

In the second instance regarding international acknowledgment of a genocidal threat against Israel, on November 21, 2005 (which event was subsequently replicated successfully on July 12, 2006 via an invasion of Israel that triggered the Second Lebanon War), the Hezbollah (meaning: “Party of Allah”) terrorist militia unsuccessfully attempted to invade the Jewish State in order to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers under the cover of a mortar and rocket bombardment that it had simultaneously launched from southern Lebanon against northern Israel’s civilian population centers.

In response to that terrorist attack against Israel, and after days of contentious debate (during which United States Department of State spokesman Sean McCormack, at the direction of President George W. Bush, condemned Hezbollah by name, but simultaneously urged Israel to limit its military response in order to avoid any “escalation” of tensions in the region), the U.N. Security Council ultimately used anodyne language in its media statement, which described Hezbollah as having “initiated” the “hostilities”. This careful phrasing allowed the U.N. Security Council to avoid describing that incident as a “terrorist attack”. Moreover, its media statement failed to condemn either that incident or Hezbollah. Likewise, its media statement also failed to condemn the roles of any of the three States without whose support that terrorist organization could not exist, let alone launch deadly attacks against Israel, namely, Lebanon (whose parliament, government and military were controlled by Hezbollah, and from whose territory that terror group operated without hindrance), Iran (which directed the activities of Hezbollah by sending huge amounts of money and weaponry to Syria for re-delivery to that terrorist militia in Lebanon), and Syria (which also exercised control over the activities of Hezbollah by re-delivering Iranian money and weaponry to it, by providing its own weaponry to it, and by maintaining auxiliary weapons depots for it in Syrian territory).

Below is the media statement issued by the U.N. Security Council’s Department of Public Information, News and Media Division (identified as U.N. document SC/8563 of November 23, 2005) in response to Hezbollah’s 2005 terrorist attack against Israel:

SECURITY COUNCIL PRESS STATEMENT ON INCIDENTS ALONG BLUE LINE SEPARATING ISRAEL, LEBANON

Following is the Security Council press statement on the 21 November Blue Line incidents, delivered today by Council President Andrey I. Denisov (Russian Federation):

The members of the Security Council received a briefing on 21 November 2005 from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations on the serious incidents along the Blue Line on that day.

The members of the Council expressed deep concern about the hostilities, which were initiated by Hezbollah from the Lebanese side, and which quickly spread along the entire Blue Line.  They regretted the resulting casualties on both sides.

They appealed to all parties to respect the Blue Line in its entirety, to exercise utmost restraint and to refrain from any action that could further escalate the situation.

They reiterated their call on the Government of Lebanon to extend its authority and to exert its monopoly over the use of force all over its territory in accordance with Security Council resolutions. 

For information media • not an official record

It is disturbing but unsurprising that, in the foregoing media statement, the Security Council declared that it “regretted the resulting casualties on both sides”, thereby choosing to morally equate dead terrorists with slain Israeli soldiers. It is inconceivable, were Israel to bombard Lebanese villages with mortars and rockets as cover for breaching the Lebanese border in order to kill and kidnap Lebanese soldiers, that the U.N. Security Council would declare that it “regretted the resulting casualties on both sides”.

Significantly, these two media statements by the Security Council were not subsequently converted into resolutions of either the Security Council or the General Assembly, thereby patently signaling to Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah, as well as to the rest of the World, that these statements were meant to be ephemeral as well as perfunctory.

Shortly thereafter, on November 29, 2005, the leadership of the United Nations removed all ambiguity regarding its attitude towards the Jewish State. As part of its official annual observance of the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”, the U.N. held a conference at its headquarters in New York City, jointly hosted by its three foremost officials, namely, the Secretary-General (Kofi Annan), the President of the Security Council (Russia, acting through Ambassador Andrey Denisov) and the President of the General Assembly (Swedish Ambassador Jan Eliasson), which unabashedly displayed a gigantic U.N.-produced map of the Middle East which had erased the entire State of Israel and had replaced it with a fictional “State of Palestine”.

Moreover, in the aftermath of the horrific suicide bombing in Netanya by the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on December 5, 2005, the U.N. Security Council refused, despite Israel’s urgent request, to issue any statement condemning Islamic Jihad (as its perpetrator) and/or the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority (as its enabler).

In fact, the United Nations has never condemned any State or organization for any act of horrific violence against Israelis or Diaspora Jews. Consequently, it appears that those few examples of the United Nations defending (however halfheartedly) Israel’s entitlement to exist, free from genocidal threats or assaults, are merely the rare exceptions that prove the general rule, which is that the United Nations is unwilling to accord to Israel the same rights and protections that it routinely guaranties under its Charter to all other member States.

The U.N.’s habitual refusal to acknowledge that Israelis, who have been murdered by “Palestinian” terrorists, are victims of terrorism is exemplified by the U.N.’s “International Day of Remembrance of and Tribute to Victims of Terrorism”, annually observed on August 21, which event habitually omits Israel from the U.N.’s list of States which have suffered from terrorism.

A particularly egregious example of this disdain for Israel occurred in the Fall of 2003, when the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly (which forum deals with social, humanitarian, and cultural issues) overwhelmingly approved Egypt’s draft resolution, entitled “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children” (demanding that “Palestinian” children be protected from Israeli aggression), but thwarted a vote on Israel’s mirror-image draft resolution entitled “Situation of and assistance to Israeli children” (demanding that Israeli children be protected from “Palestinian” aggression). This subterfuge was accomplished when Egypt, being assured of majority support in the Third Committee, introduced amendments to Israel’s draft resolution which were so extensive that Israel’s draft resolution received a new title, namely, “The situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East Region”, and suffered a complete substitution of its pertinent preambular and operative provisions, with the result that it was transformed into a draft resolution which now lacked any reference to Israeli children, and instead condemned the Jewish State as an “Occupying power”.

A more detailed account of this episode will serve to demonstrate the extent to which Israel has been an object of disdain and humiliation at the United Nations:

On October 28, 2003, Israel’s “peace partner” Egypt (joined by 37 other countries plus the Permanent Observer of “Palestine”) introduced draft resolution no. A/C.3/58/L.24 during the 58^th session of the Third Committee (under agenda item 113), entitled “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children”. The Egyptian draft resolution stated, in full, as follows:

Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Recalling also the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children and the Plan of Action for Implementing the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children in the 1990s, adopted by the World Summit for Children, held in New York on 29 and 30 September 1990,

Recalling further the Declaration and Plan of Action adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh special session,

Concerned that the Palestinian children under Israeli occupation remain deprived of many basic rights under the Convention,

Concerned also about the continued grave deterioration of the situation of Palestinian children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and about the severe consequences of the continuing Israeli assaults and sieges on Palestinian cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, resulting in the dire humanitarian crisis,

Emphasizing the importance of the safety and well-being of all children in the whole Middle East region,

Expressing its condemnation of all acts of violence, resulting in extensive loss of human life and injuries, including among Palestinian children,

Deeply concerned about the severe consequences, including psychological consequences, of the Israeli military actions for the present and future well-being of Palestinian children,

1. Stresses the urgent need for Palestinian children to live a normal life free from foreign occupation, destruction and fear in their own State;

2. Demands, in the meanwhile, that Israel, the occupying Power, respect relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in order to ensure the well-being and protection of Palestinian children and their families;

3. Calls upon the international community to provide urgently needed assistance and services in an effort to alleviate the dire humanitarian crisis being faced by Palestinian children and their families and to help in the reconstruction of relevant Palestinian institutions.

Fifteen days later, on November 12, 2003, Israel (bereft of any co-sponsors) introduced draft resolution no. A/C.3/58/L.30/Rev.1 during the 58^th session of the Third Committee (under agenda item 117(b)), entitled “Situation of and assistance to Israeli children”. The Israeli draft resolution stated, in full, as follows:

Situation of and assistance to Israeli children

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling also the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children and the Plan of Action for Implementing the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children in the 1990s, adopted by the World Summit for Children, held in New York on 29 and 30 September 1990,

Recalling further the Declaration and Plan of Action adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh special session,

Emphasizing the importance of the safety and well-being of all children in the whole Middle East region,

Concerned that Israeli children suffering from the effects of terrorism are deprived of many basic rights under the Convention,

Concerned also about the continuous grave threat to Israeli children from terrorism, and about the severe consequences of continuing terrorist attacks by terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade directed against Israeli civilians, including children,

Expressing its condemnation of all acts of violence and incitement to violence and terrorism, resulting in extensive loss of human life and injuries, including among Israeli children,

Deeply concerned about the severe consequences, including psychological consequences, of terrorist attacks on the present and future well-being of Israeli children,

1. Stresses the urgent need for Israeli children to live a normal life free from terrorism, destruction and fear;

2. Demands that the Palestinian Authority respect its obligations to undertake effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and the dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure and to guarantee that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice.

Six days later, on November 18, 2003, in order to garner more support for its draft resolution, Israel introduced revised draft resolution no. A/C.3/58/L.30/Rev.2 during the 58^th session of the Third Committee (under agenda item 117(b)) which deleted the sixth preambular paragraph of its draft resolution (which had identified and censured three major terrorist groups by name) and replaced the “offending” provision with the following sanitized preambular paragraph (which removed the references to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade):

Concerned also about the continuous grave threat to Israeli children from terrorism, and about the severe consequences of continuing terrorist attacks directed against Israeli civilians, including children,

Nonetheless, one day later, on November 19, 2003, Egypt (joined by Indonesia) introduced amendment no. A/C.3/58/L.59 during the 58^th session of the Third Committee (under agenda item 117(b)) which altered Israel’s original draft resolution to state, in full, as follows:

The situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East Region

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling also the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children and the Plan of Action for Implementing the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children in the 1990s, adopted by the World Summit for Children, held in New York on 29 and 30 September 1990,

Recalling further the Declaration and Plan of Action adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-seventh special session,

Emphasizing the importance of the safety and well-being of all children in the whole Middle East region,

Concerned that Middle East children suffering from the effects of occupation, violence and terrorism are deprived of many basic rights under the Convention,

Emphasizing that foreign occupation, violations of international law, including international humanitarian law, and violations of instruments relevant to the well-being of the child, as well as deprivation, hostility and confrontation, are the main sources of the suffering and hardship of children in the whole Middle East region,

Expressing its condemnation of all acts of violence, military assaults, excessive use of force and incitement of violence and terrorism, resulting in extensive loss of human life and injuries, including among children,

Affirming the obligations of Israel, the occupying Power, under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

1. Stresses the urgent need for Middle East children to live a normal life free from occupation, deprivation, terrorism, destruction and fear;

2. Expresses its support for all efforts to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and to ensure peace and prosperity for the peoples of the region, including children.

Not taking any chances, two days later, on November 21, 2003, Egypt (this time joined by 10 other States) introduced amendment no. A/C.3/58/L.81 during the 58^th session of the Third Committee (under agenda item 117(b)) which altered Israel’s revised draft resolution to conform it, as well, to Egypt’s transformative amendment of November 19, 2003.

As a consequence of the foregoing, on November 26, 2003 -- just 14 days after the introduction of its draft resolution on the protection of Israeli children from “Palestinian” terrorism -- Israel was compelled by the brutality of logic to withdraw it (as recounted in the Report of the Third Committee to the General Assembly dated December 15, 2003, identified as U.N. document A/58/508/Add.2).

Conversely, the approved “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children” draft resolution authored by Egypt was included in the recommendatory Report of the Third Committee to the General Assembly dated December 4, 2003, identified as U.N. document A/58/504; and that draft resolution thereafter became finalized as U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 58/155 of December 22, 2003 (entitled “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian children”).

Moreover, the U.N.'s primal enmity towards the State of Israel is not limited to the mere issuance of condemnatory resolutions. For example, the U.N., through its “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”, funds and supervises the very “refugee camps” (which are actually built-up neighborhoods of various Arab-populated cities in Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza) and militarized summer camps in which “Palestinian” Arab youth are systematically inculcated with an intense and enduring hatred for Jews, and from which legions of terrorists (many of them teenagers) have inexorably emerged. The UNRWA school curriculum teaches “Palestinian” students that the State of Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines is “Occupied Palestine”, and that all “Palestinian refugees” will eventually “return” there. An UNRWA school book for emerging teenagers contains the following irredentist and revanchist poem, which encourages the employment of a Jihad (meaning: a holy war) to flood Israel with millions of hostile foreign-born Arabs:

We Are Returning 

Returning, returning, we are returning 
Borders shall not exist, nor citadels and fortresses 
Cry out, O those who have left: 

We are returning 

Returning to the homes, to the valleys, to the mountains 
Under the flag of glory, Jihad and struggle

With blood, sacrifice, fraternity and loyalty 

We are returning 

Returning, O hills; returning, O heights 
Returning to childhood; returning to youth 
To Jihad in the hills, harvest in the Land 

We are returning 

(excerpt from UNRWA’s 7^th grade school book “Our Beautiful Language”, Part 1, p. 28 (2013 edition))

However, UNRWA’s hostility towards Israel is not limited to its school curriculum. Gazan UNRWA schools, in cooperation with the Hamas terrorist organization, host paramilitary training sessions for its students in preparation for war against Israel; and Hamas rockets and munitions have long been stored in UNRWA facilities. Furthermore, in an October 3, 2004 interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, conceded that UNRWA employees include members of Hamas; and, thereafter, several employees of that U.N. agency competed in the Palestinian Authority’s parliamentary elections of January 2006 as official candidates of Hamas. Additionally, in the Gazan UNRWA staff union elections of September 2012, Hamas members won 25 of the 27 union positions.

Moreover, U.N.-appointed UNRWA officials risk dismissal if they even hint that, in defending itself from Gazan mortars and missiles, Israel has complied with the Laws of War. For example, in an interview with Israel-based “Channel 12” on May 23, 2021, Matthias Schmale, Director of UNRWA Affairs in Gaza, responded to Israel’s claim that its bombing campaign against Gazan terrorists was highly precise rather than indiscriminate, as follows:

“I’m not a military expert but I would not dispute that [i.e., Israel’s claim that its counter-strikes against Gaza were precise]. I also have the impression that there is a huge sophistication in the way the Israeli military struck over the last 11 days. … So yes, they did not hit, with some exceptions, civilian targets, but the viciousness and ferocity of the strikes were heavily felt. ... So, the precision was there, but there was an unacceptable and unbearable loss of life on the civilian side.”

Yet, despite Schmale’s strong condemnation of the civilian deaths caused by Israel’s 2021 defensive bombing campaign in Gaza, his acknowledgment as an UNRWA official that -- nonetheless -- Israel had not been targeting those civilians resulted in his immediate termination from that U.N. organization.

Even worse, scores of UNRWA employees participated in the horrific Hamas invasion of Israel proper and the slaughter of 1280 people there on October 7, 2023. Moreover, hundreds of UNRWA teachers immediately expressed their support for the massacre. As reported by the “National Review” online news portal in an article by Kayla Bartsch, dated January 10, 2024, under the headline “U.N. Agency Teachers Cheered Hamas as October Attack Unfolded, Called for Execution of Jews in Group Chat”:

“Teachers working for the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) cheered as Hamas terrorists raped and murdered Israelis on October 7, according to recently divulged transcripts of a UNRWA Gaza online group. More than 3,000 UNRWA teachers in Gaza belong to the social media group, which is hosted on the instant messaging platform Telegram and was exposed by the watchdog group UN Watch. The digital forum contains posts celebrating the massacre of October 7 just moments after it began. …”

All of the foregoing contradicts UNRWA’s lofty self-description, as published on its website, to wit:

“Established by the UN General Assembly (as its subsidiary organ), UNRWA is a United Nations agency and humanitarian organization that operates based on the legal framework applicable to UN entities, including the United Nations Charter, and in accordance with the UN humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and operational independence.”

In light of the fact that more than 99% of UNRWA staff in Gaza are Gazans, it is not surprising that this “neutral” and “impartial” U.N. agency is infested with members and supporters of terrorist militias, and that it has adopted their ideological agenda against the Jewish State.

Yet, despite that fact that a U.N. agency is spearheading a campaign of demonization and delegitimization against a member State of the U.N., and despite the fact that terrorist organizations have been permitted to dominate that same U.N. agency, it is only that member State’s periodic defensive actions against those terrorist organizations that elicit outrage from the U.N.

In essence, Israel is the only member State of the U.N. which has never been accorded the diplomatic benefit of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter which states, in salient part, as follows:

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ...

The World’s routine condemnation of Israel’s periodic exercise of its inherent right of self-defense is the natural and predictable result of the routine and longstanding employment of the tactics of demonization, delegitimization and double standards against the Jewish State at many U.N.-sponsored events, because a State that has no right to exist logically has no right to defend itself against aggression (which aggression has been redefined by the U.N. system as the heroic “resistance” to the Oppression embodied by the continued existence of that State). An example of these tactics occurred on November 29, 2005, at a U.N. conference held at its main headquarters in New York City (also discussed above), during which a U.N.-produced map of the Middle East, as of May 15, 1948 (being the effective date of the establishment of the State of Israel), was displayed, which map effected the retroactive erasure of the State of Israel and its replacement with a “State of Palestine”. Although U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and two other high ranking U.N. officials were present during the unveiling of this map, neither he nor any other U.N. official protested its obvious message.

Another example of these tactics occurred on February 27, 2013 at the 5^th Global Forum of the “United Nations Alliance of Civilizations” held in Vienna, Austria, when, during his public remarks to the Alliance’s “Group of Friends”, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared that Zionism is a “crime against humanity”, thereby implying that the continued existence of the State of Israel -- whose creation was the raison d’être of the Zionist Movement -- is also a “crime against humanity”. Although this slander was uttered in the presence of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who shared the stage with Erdoğan, the Secretary-General neither rebuked Erdoğan nor exited the stage in protest of his remarks. Predictably, Israel -- which (unlike the “State of Palestine”) has been denied admittance to the Alliance’s “Group of Friends” and, consequently, was not permitted to have a representative in attendance -- lacked any opportunity to contemporaneously protest this slander.

A further example occurred on May 3, 2013 at a televised U.N.-sponsored event in Lebanon during which Ann Dismorr, the Director of the Lebanon office of UNRWA, displayed -- together with the flag of the Palestine Liberation Organization (which doubles as the flag of the “State of Palestine”) -- a map of the State of Israel, all of which was labeled as “Arab Palestine”.

Moreover, from November 24, 2014 to December 5, 2014, in conjunction with its annual observance of the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”, the United Nations permitted its regional headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland to host an exhibit which asserted that Israel is an illegal colonialist entity whose creation was made possible only via its employment of the tactics of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the “Palestinians”. Inter alia, the exhibit demanded, as a measure of restorative justice, that Israel allow itself to be inundated with millions of foreign-born “Palestinian” immigrants. It is a sobering fact that virtually all components of the U.N. system have been, and continue to be, complicit in the routine diplomatic assault against one -- and only one -- of its member States, namely, the one State in the World that is populated and ruled by Jews.

Sadly, disdain for and rejection of Israel’s inherent right of self-defense has so permeated the United Nations system that, when Gaza fired hundreds of mortars and missiles into Israel proper (one of which hit a kindergarten in the nearby city of Sderot) in May 2018, thereby prompting the United States (at the direction of President Donald Trump) to sponsor U.N. Security Council draft resolution no. S/2018/520 of June 1, 2018, which resolution condemned Hamas and Islamic Jihad for their aggression against Israel, the draft resolution spectacularly but unsurprisingly failed, as it received only one affirmative vote in the 15-member U.N. Security Council, namely, that of its sponsor -- the United States. Not even ostensible allies of Israel and the United States, such as Britain, France, Ethiopia, and the Netherlands, could bring themselves to officially and publicly condemn those two terrorist groups, both sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State, for an indisputable act of war against a fellow member State of the U.N.

Republished below is that failed U.N. Security Council draft resolution:

United States of America: draft resolution

The Security Council,

Expressing concern about the escalation of violence in Gaza caused by terrorist organizations such as Hamas,

Recalling also its resolutions on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, and emphasizing the obligation not to attack civilians, civilian populations, or civilian objects in situations of armed conflict,

Deploring the loss of human life and the endangerment of innocent civilians,

Stressing that all parties must comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law, as applicable,

Expressing its grave concern at the escalation of violence and tensions and the deterioration of the situation in Gaza, caused by terrorist organizations such as Hamas, in particular since 30 March 2018,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction caused by terrorist organizations such as Hamas,

Reaffirming the right to peaceful assembly and protest, freedom of expression and of association,

Alarmed at the exacerbation of the dire humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and stressing the need to achieve a sustainable solution to this crisis,

Stressing the particular impact that armed conflict has on women and children, including as refugees and displaced persons, as well as on other civilians who may have specific vulnerabilities, including persons with disabilities and older persons, and stressing the need for the Security Council and Member States to strengthen further the protection of civilians,

Recalling its commitment to a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict agreed upon by both parties,

Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the indiscriminate firing of rockets by Palestinian militants in Gaza toward communities in Israel on May 29, 2018, which damaged civilian infrastructure and was the largest attack from Gaza since 2014;

2. Demands that Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other militant groups in Gaza cease all violent activity and provocative actions, including along the boundary fence, and cease putting civilians at risk through their actions;

3. Condemns the diversion of resources by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other groups in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets, when such resources could have addressed the needs of the civilian population;

4. Demands that all member states refrain from providing weapons or any other materiel that could be used for rocket attacks to militant groups in Gaza;

5. Calls for full respect by all parties for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including in regards to the protection of the civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection, as well as to ensure accountability for all violations;

6. Deplores any actions by terrorist groups in Gaza such as Hamas that could provoke violence and endanger civilian lives, and calls on them to ensure that protests remain peaceful;

7. Calls for urgent steps to ensure an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire;

8. Calls for the exercise of maximum restraint and calm by all parties in Gaza and the need for immediate and significant steps to stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground caused by terrorist organizations in Gaza, including Hamas;

9. Demands that all parties in Gaza cooperate with medical and humanitarian personnel to allow and facilitate unimpeded access to the civilian population, calls for the cessation of all forms of violence and intimidation directed against medical and humanitarian personnel, and expresses grave concern for the destruction of the Kerem Shalom crossing by actors in Gaza, which has severely hindered deliveries of food and fuel for the people of Gaza;

10. Encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation, including in support of the mediation efforts of Egypt, and concrete steps to reunite the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and ensure its effective functioning in the Gaza Strip;

11. Welcomes and urges further engagement by the Secretary-General and the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process to assist, in cooperation with concerned partners, in the efforts to immediately de-escalate the situation and address urgent infrastructure, humanitarian, and economic development needs, including through the implementation of projects endorsed by the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to examine the present situation and to submit a written report, as soon as possible, but not later than 60 days from the adoption of the present resolution, on terrorist organizations such as Hamas using protesters for incitement and carrying out other acts of violence in the past 90 days, with the goal of preventing such clashes in the future;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

With respect to the marshalling of international condemnation against rocket and mortar attacks by terrorist organizations against Israel’s civilian population centers, the U.S. has fared no better in the U.N. General Assembly than it has in the U.N. Security Council. For, when Gaza again fired hundreds of mortars and missiles into Israel proper (many of which destroyed occupied houses) in November 2018, thereby prompting the United States (at the direction of President Donald Trump) to sponsor U.N. General Assembly draft resolution no. A/73/L.42 of November 29, 2018, which draft resolution again condemned Hamas and Islamic Jihad for their aggression against Israel, the draft resolution failed to reach the passage threshold.

Republished below is that failed U.N. General Assembly draft resolution:

United States of America: draft resolution

Activities of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming support for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, in accordance with international law, and bearing in mind relevant United Nations resolutions,

Recognizing that all acts of violence against civilians, particularly acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction only serve to erode trust and hinder efforts to bring about a peaceful solution,

1. Condemns Hamas for repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk;

2. Demands that Hamas and other militant actors, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, cease all provocative actions and violent activity, including by using airborne incendiary devices;

3. Condemns the use of resources by Hamas in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas, when such resources could be used to address the critical needs of the civilian population;

4. Calls for full respect by all parties for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including in regard to the protection of the civilian population;

5. Also calls for the cessation of all forms of violence and intimidation

directed against medical and humanitarian personnel, and reiterates the importance of respecting the inviolability and neutrality of United Nations premises;

6. Encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation, including in support of the mediation efforts of Egypt, and concrete steps to reunite the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and ensure its effective functioning in the Gaza Strip;

7. Welcomes and urges further engagement by the Secretary-General and the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process to assist, in cooperation with concerned partners, in the efforts to de-escalate the situation and address urgent infrastructure, humanitarian and economic development needs.

A more recent example is even more instructive. In the early morning of October 7, 2023, in violation of the ceasefire then in effect between Israel and Gaza, more than 3,000 members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority-controlled al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigade, the P.L.O.’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine faction, employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and unaffiliated Gazans breached the security barrier separating Gaza from Israel proper at 75 infiltration points amid a diversionary barrage of thousands of rockets and mortars against Israel’s civilian population centers. As seen in numerous videos created by the perpetrators and uploaded to the Internet, these Gazans indiscriminately and gleefully slaughtered 1,280 people in Israel proper, in the process raping, torturing, mutilating, immolating, and decapitating many of them, as well as plundering and incinerating their homes. Although this was not the first large-scale attack by Gaza against Israel in the wake of Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 -- with earlier post-withdrawal attacks occurring in 2006, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2019, and 2021 -- this was the worst of such attacks.

In addition, more than 4,200 people were wounded, and 255 people were abducted and then transported to Gaza. Significantly, some of the abductees were taken and/or held by the P.L.O.’s Fatah faction, which controls the Palestinian Authority. The purpose of these abductions was to obstruct effective Israeli retaliation and to obtain the release (via an exchange of hostages for terrorists) of more than 5,000 “Palestinian” terrorists imprisoned in Israel.

The victims of this terrorist atrocity were mostly civilians, with the vast majority comprising Jews (but also including Bedouin Arabs and foreign workers). Significantly, as a result of the civilian carnage, this onslaught resulted in the depopulation of 22 Jewish villages near Gaza.

However, let us assume arguendo that all 1533 people who was killed, raped, tortured, mutilated, immolated, decapitated, and/or abducted on October 7, 2023 had been Israeli soldiers. Would those altered circumstances have lessened the enormity of the assault against Israel? No; and, consequently, an Israeli military campaign to vanquish Gaza would still have been justified as well as necessary.

However, let us further assume arguendo that none of those killed or abducted soldiers had been subjected to accompanying barbarities. Would those further altered circumstances have lessened the enormity of the assault against Israel? No; and, consequently, an Israeli military campaign to vanquish Gaza would still have been justified as well as necessary.

However, let us further assume arguendo that all those soldiers were killed, not in a ground invasion of Israel proper, but rather exclusively via Gaza’s concomitant missile and mortar bombardment of Israeli military bases. Would those further altered circumstances have lessened the enormity of the assault against Israel? No; and, consequently, an Israeli military campaign to vanquish Gaza would still have been justified as well as necessary.

Yet, despite the foregoing casus belli, the international community (including the United States at the direction of President Joseph Biden) condemned Israel for implementing a disproportionate response which (according to the international community) could not be justified by the harm that Israel’s population suffered on October 7, 2023.

In this context, it should be recalled that the United States entered World War II on December 7, 1941 in response to Imperial Japan’s aerial bombardment of the U.S. military facilities at the Pearl Harbor lagoon, located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, which killed 2,403 military personnel and 68 civilians. The fact that

(a) the vast majority of U.S deaths at Pearl Habor were military personnel,

(b) none of those killings were accompanied by barbarities, and

(c) the aerial bombardment of Pearl Harbor was not accompanied by a ground invasion of Hawaii

did not lessen the enormity of Japan’s assault against the United States; and, consequently, the U.S. military campaign to vanquish Japan (which included the use of nuclear weapons) was justified as well as necessary -- even though that campaign resulted in the deaths of more than 2,600,000 Japanese.

It is telling that none of the many States that have condemned Israel for implementing a disproportionate and consequently unjustifiable response to the “Palestinian” atrocities of October 7, 2023 (because, according to the Hamas-controlled Gaza “Health Ministry”, Israel had caused approximately 36,000 “Palestinian” deaths through May 2024, despite having suffered only 1,280 initial deaths) have ever accused the United States of implementing a disproportionate and consequently unjustifiable response to the Japanese military operation of December 7, 1941 (because the U.S. caused more than 2,600,000 Japanese deaths, despite having suffered only 2,471 initial deaths).

The international accusation that Israel responded disproportionately and consequently unjustifiably to

(a) Gaza’s ground invasion of Israel proper,

(b) its concomitant missile and mortar barrage,

(c) its concomitant barbarities against civilians (and soldiers), and

(d) its concomitant abduction of civilians (and soldiers)

is only the most recent example of a double-standard that the international community has applied to the Jewish State -- and only to the Jewish State.

The “Palestinian” perpetrators from Gaza slaughtered or attempted to slaughter everyone (except abductees) within their areas of control, thereby evincing genocidal intent. Unsurprisingly, the carnage ended only when the Israeli army finally arrived en masse, in the process killing or capturing all of the invaders.

In light of that genocidal intent, did the horrific atrocities of October 7, 2023 constitute a second Holocaust? No, but those atrocities represented a harbinger thereof, as they constituted an unambiguous warning to the Jewish people that, unless the States and the terrorist militias that are dedicated to the Jewish State's destruction are vanquished, there will indeed be a second Holocaust -- especially as the Iranian-funded terrorist militias in Gaza represent only one component of genocidal Iran’s “ring of fire” strategy to encircle the Jewish State with its equally-genocidal proxy militias, namely:

(1) “Palestinian” terrorist militias in Gaza (the most prominent of which are Hamas and Islamic Jihad),

(2) “Palestinian” terrorist militias in P.A.-governed areas of Judea & Samaria (the most prominent of which are Hamas and Islamic Jihad),

(3) several terrorist militias in Lebanon (the most prominent of which is Hezbollah),

(4) several terrorist militias in Iraq,

(5) several terrorist militias in Syria, and

(6) the Houthi terrorist militia, known as Ansar Allah, in Yemen.

Of course, there is a crucial difference between desire and capability, both of which are required in order to implement another Holocaust. What Nazi Germany and the Islamo-fascist militias (as well as the latter’s sponsoring States) have always shared is the desire to annihilate the Jewish people. What they have never shared is the capability to fulfill that desire in toto. While the Nazis possessed that capability in toto, the Islamo-fascist militias (and their sponsoring States) have not yet acquired it. However, those terrorist militias and the ordinary Gazans who joined them in inflicting the carnage of October 7 demonstrated to the Jewish people exactly what its multinational enemies could -- and would -- do with that capability if and when they acquire it.

Yet, in reaction to the Hamas-led invasion of Israel proper and the concomitant perpetration of barbarities there, neither the U.N. Security Council, nor the U.N. General Assembly, nor the World Health Organization, nor the U.N. Human Rights Council, nor the United Nations Children’s Fund, nor the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women could be persuaded to immediately issue a resolution or media statement unequivocally condemning Hamas for its Nazi-like barbarities against Israel’s civilian population on that date.

Instead, the Spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued the following dispassionate and evenhanded media statement (identified as U.N. document SG/SM/21981 of October 7, 2023):

Secretary-General Strongly Condemns Attack by Hamas against Israeli Towns Near Gaza Strip, Which Have Killed Numerous Civilians, Injured Hundreds

The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres:

The Secretary-General condemns in the strongest terms this morning’s attack by Hamas against Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip and central Israel, including the firing of thousands of rockets towards Israeli population centres.

The attacks have so far claimed numerous Israeli civilian lives and injured many hundreds.  The Secretary-General is appalled by reports that civilians have been attacked and abducted from their own homes.

The Secretary-General is deeply concerned for the civilian population and urges maximum restraint.  Civilians must be respected and protected in accordance with international humanitarian law at all times.

The Secretary-General extends his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and calls for the immediate release of all abducted persons.

The Secretary-General urges all diplomatic efforts to avoid a wider conflagration.

He stresses that violence cannot provide a solution to the conflict, and that only through negotiation leading to a two-State solution can peace be achieved.

For information media. Not an official record.

It is noteworthy that the U.N. Secretary-General’s media statement condemned what it described, both in the caption and in the body of the statement, as a mere “attack by Hamas” -- without further labeling that “attack” as a terrorist attack or its main perpetrator Hamas as a terrorist organization -- and, most significantly, without condemning Hamas for perpetrating that “attack”. Moreover, the statement severely understated the number of casualties, and it completely ignored the barbarities committed during that “attack”. Furthermore, after the statement’s perfunctory condemnation of the “attack”, it quickly pivoted to calling upon Israel to exercise “maximum restraint” and to employ “all diplomatic efforts to avoid a wider conflagration”; and, lastly, it preached to Israel that “violence cannot provide a solution to the conflict” and that there must instead be a “negotiation leading to a two-State solution”.

Despite intense criticism from Jewish organizations and some members of the U.S. Congress, it was only on December 1, 2023 -- almost two months after these atrocities were perpetrated -- that the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (commonly known as “U.N. Women”) finally posted a statement on its website that, inter alia, perfunctorily condemned “the brutal attacks by Hamas” (without further labeling the “attacks” as a terrorist attack or its main perpetrator Hamas as a terrorist organization), but only after U.N. Women had first created a false moral equivalency between that genocidal onslaught and Israel’s defensive military campaign against Hamas (and other terrorist organizations) in Gaza by expressing its “regret that military operations have resumed in Gaza”. Moreover, even after condemning “the brutal attacks by Hamas”, U.N. Women implied that Israeli claims that sexual atrocities were perpetrated by Hamas and its accomplices during their invasion of Israel proper might not be true, which is why -- instead of accepting the results of Israel’s investigation thereof -- it called for those claims to be investigated and verified by the (anti-Israel) United Nations as a condition of being accepted as true. Furthermore, by demanding “accountability for all acts of gender-based violence committed on and after 7 October”, U.N. Women further implied that Israel may have also perpetrated similar sexual crimes against Gazans. Lastly, U.N. Women demanded a “humanitarian ceasefire”, which would have been anything but humanitarian, as it would have allowed a genocidal terrorist organization to continue ruling Gaza and to continue perpetrating horrific atrocities against Israel’s civilian population. It noteworthy that, while the statement by U.N. Women condemned the “brutal attacks by Hamas”, it did not condemn Hamas for perpetrating those “brutal attacks”. Below is the full text of the belated and carefully-crafted statement by U.N. Women:

We deeply regret that military operations have resumed in Gaza, and we reiterate that all women, Israeli women, Palestinian women, as all others, are entitled to a life lived in safety and free from violence.

We unequivocally condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October. We are alarmed by the numerous accounts of gender-based atrocities and sexual violence during those attacks. This is why we have called for all accounts of gender-based violence to be duly investigated and prosecuted, with the rights of the victim at the core.

In all conflicts, UN Women fully supports rigorous investigations and Commissions of Inquiry where they exist. We are actively supporting the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which began its investigation into sexual violence very shortly after the attacks occurred. We welcome that the Commission has opened its call for submissions on gender-based crimes since 7 October.

We also welcome that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Pramila Patten has activated the UN Action network, of which we are a member, to proactively share UN-sourced and verified information on incidents, patterns, and trends of conflict-related sexual violence to aid all investigations.

We continue to call for accountability for all acts of gender-based violence committed on and after 7 October, the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages, and a humanitarian ceasefire.

For the sake of everyone in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, and especially women and children, we call for a return to a path of peace, a respect for international humanitarian and international human rights law, and an end to the suffering of people in Gaza and in Israel, and those families still waiting for their loved ones to return.

Furthermore, many States with which Israel has diplomatic relations (e.g., Russia, China, Turkiye, South Africa, Egypt, and Jordan) not only refused to condemn Hamas for its planned barbarities, but these States even continued to deny that Hamas was a terrorist organization, despite the fact that, on that day, Hamas and its accomplices massacred entire families while they slept, tied together family members who were then burned to death when their houses were set on fire, gang-raped men, women, and children (both before and after murdering them), hacked off victims’ limbs, genitals, and breasts, and decapitated and/or immolated scores of Jews, including toddlers and babies.

Moreover, not only did the U.N. Security Council refuse to condemn Hamas for perpetrating these atrocities, but it also continued its longstanding refusal to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization.

As confirmed by Martin Griffiths, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator, in an interview with Britain-based Sky News on February 14, 2024:

“Hamas is not a terrorist group for us [i.e., the U.N. system]; as you know, it is a political movement.”

Yet, the U.N. Security Council had no problem promptly condemning other terrorist atrocities that happened during this same period. For example, on March 22, 2024, members of the terrorist militia known as “Islamic State” massacred 137 people and injured 182 others attending a concert in Moscow, Russia -- which itself was then perpetrating flagrant war crimes as part of its invasion and missile bombardment of Ukraine. On that same day, the U.N. Security Council issued a media statement (identified as U.N. document SC/15640 of March 22, 2024) in solidarity with Russia as a victim of terrorism. In contrast to the U.N. Secretary-General’s media statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Israel, the U.N. Security Council’s media statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Russia labeled those atrocities as a “terrorist attack” in both the caption and the body of the statement. Moreover, in contrast to its complete silence with respect to the terrorist atrocities against Israel, the U.N. Security Council declared with respect to the terrorist atrocities against Russia, inter alia, that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”, that “any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed”, and that all States “need to hold perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of these reprehensible acts of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice”. Below is that passionate and rightly-partisan media statement:

Security Council Press Statement on Terrorist Attack in Moscow Region, Russian Federation

The following Security Council press statement was issued today by Council President Yamazaki Kazuyuki (Japan):

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the heinous and cowardly terrorist attack at a concert hall in Krasnogorsk, Moscow Region, the Russian Federation, on 22 March. This reprehensible act of terrorism resulted in the grievous loss of dozens of lives and has left more than 100 injured, some in critical condition.

The members of the Security Council expressed their deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims and to the Russian people, and they wished a speedy and full recovery to those who were injured.

The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.

The members of the Security Council underlined the need to hold perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of these reprehensible acts of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice. They urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as all other relevant authorities in this regard.

The members of the Security Council reiterated that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed. They reaffirmed the need for all States to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other obligations under international law, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.

For information media. Not an official record.

It is noteworthy that, in contrast to the U.N. Secretary-General’s statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Israel, the U.N. Security Council’s statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Russia, did not identify the perpetrator of the terrorist attack. However, this is not because one or more of the States which were then members of the U.N. Security Council was a supporter of Islamic State or otherwise sought to shield that terrorist organization from adverse publicity. Rather, as such U.N. Security Council statements are issued only pursuant to consensus, and as Russia -- being a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council -- risibly insisted that Ukraine rather than Islamic State was the perpetrator of the terrorist attack, it was impossible to create a consensus statement that identified the perpetrator as Islamic State. Consequently, the identity of the perpetrator was omitted from that consensus statement. It is indisputable that, if Russia had conceded that the terrorist attack was perpetrated by Islamic State, then that consensus statement would not only have identified Islamic State as the perpetrator, but it would have also forcefully condemned that terrorist organization.

However, there were more significant differences between the U.N. Secretary-General’s statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Israel and the U.N. Security Council’s consensus statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Russia -- expressed via both decisions of inclusion and decisions of exclusion. For example, in contrast to the statement regarding Israel, the statement regarding Russia did not describe the horrific atrocities as a mere “attack”, but rather as “the heinous and cowardly terrorist attack” and “[t]his reprehensible act of terrorism”, before declaring that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”, that “any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed”, and that all States “need to hold perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of these reprehensible acts of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice”.

Moreover, also in contrast to the statement regarding Israel, the statement regarding Russia did not call upon the latter to exercise “maximum restraint” or to employ “all diplomatic efforts to avoid a wider conflagration”; nor did it preach to the latter that “violence cannot provide a solution to the conflict”.

Furthermore, in contrast to the U.N. Security Council consensus statement regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Russia, which unequivocally declared that “any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed”, an earlier statement made by the U.N. Secretary-General to the Security Council on October 24, 2023 regarding the atrocities perpetrated against Israel, sought to provide a compelling rationale for those atrocities even as that statement perfunctorily claimed that those atrocities could not be justified. Below is the relevant excerpt from that statement:

“Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian targets.

All hostages must be treated humanely and released immediately and without conditions.  I respectfully note the presence among us of members of their families.

Excellencies,

It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.

The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. 

They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished.  Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.

But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas.  And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

The pointed failure of the U.N. Security Council to issue a supportive statement regarding Israel that was even remotely similar to the robustly-supportive statement regarding Russia blatantly demonstrates the extent to which Israel continues to be an object of contempt and disdain within the U.N. system.

On January 26, 2024, the U.N.’s International Court of Justice issued its decision (identified as U.N. document 192-20240126-ORD-01-00-EN) on a petition entitled “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)”. In a ruling filled with errors of law and logic, the Court concluded as follows in paragraph 54 of its Opinion:

54. In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa [to be necessary to prevent Israel from perpetrating genocide in Gaza] with respect to and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III [of the Genocide Convention], and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the [Genocide] Convention.

Acknowledging that the Genocide Convention was never intended to address an insignificant number of casualties among a civilian population by stating that “the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole” (Opinion, paragraph 44), the Court conceded that the crime of genocide legally required a plan “to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group” (Opinion, paragraph 44).

Consequently, logic dictated that the Court should have next examined whether the Israel-inflicted civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio was so high that it evinced an Israeli attempt to destroy a “substantial part” of the civilian population of Gaza.

However, instead of examining that issue, the Court irrelevantly decided to examine whether the population of Gaza constituted a “substantial part” of a “protected group”, which it defined as the “Palestinians”, implicitly meaning the worldwide “Palestinian” population. The Court thereupon concluded that the population of Gaza did indeed constitute a “substantial part” of the “Palestinians”.

The Court then ignored the legal requirement of a plan to “destroy at least a substantial part” of a local population group (i.e., the civilian population of Gaza), and replaced it with a nonexistent requirement that an affected local population group (i.e., the civilian population of Gaza) must constitute a “substantial part” of a global population group (i.e., the worldwide “Palestinian” population). Applying that conjured formula, the Court thereby concluded via a non sequitur that the legal requirement that there must be a plan “to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group” (Opinion, paragraph 44) was satisfied because “Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group [i.e., the worldwide “Palestinian” population]” (Opinion, paragraph 45).

Per the Court’s tortured reasoning, although the crime of genocide requires that civilian casualties be “significant” (Opinion, paragraph 44), it does not actually matter whether the number or percentage of casualties among a civilian population is significant or insignificant, because the legal requirement that there must be a plan “to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group” is satisfied whenever an affected local population group is a “substantial part” of a global population group. Consequently, per the Court’s bizarre interpretation of the Genocide Convention, this legal requirement would have been satisfied even if Israel had killed only one Gazan civilian, because “Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group [i.e., the worldwide “Palestinian” population]”. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Court’s Opinion are set forth below:

44. The Court recalls that, in order for acts to fall within the scope of Article II of the [Genocide] Convention, “the intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group. That is demanded by the very nature of the crime of genocide: since the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups, the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole.” (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 126, para. 198.)

45. The Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, and hence a protected group within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention. The Court observes that, according to United Nations sources, the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip comprises over 2 million people. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group.

Although the Court subsequently cited alleged Gazan casualty figures (see Opinion, paragraph 46), it did not examine

(a) what number or percentage of those casualties were inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles (i.e., missiles and mortars);

(b) what number or percentage of those casualties were inflicted by Israel;

(c) what number or percentage of Israel-inflicted casualties were combatants; or

(d) the military context under which civilian casualties were inflicted by Israel.

Regarding the legal principle that proof of intent to perpetrate genocide is also required by the Genocide Convention (see Opinion, paragraphs 41 & 44), the Court dishonestly employed the annihilationist rhetoric of Israeli leaders against Hamas as proof of Israel’s intent to annihilate the civilian population of Gaza. Although Israeli leaders did condemn the indisputable complicity of Gaza’s civilian population in the atrocities orchestrated by Hamas, none of them threatened to annihilate that civilian population. Paragraph 52 of the Opinion, which republished the statements of Israeli leaders from which the Court maliciously inferred an intent to perpetrate genocide against the civilian population of Gaza, is set forth below:

52. On 9 October 2023, Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel, announced that he had ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza City and that there would be “no electricity, no food, no fuel” and that “everything [was] closed”. On the following day, Minister Gallant stated, speaking to Israeli troops on the Gaza border:

“I have released all restraints . . . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals [i.e., the terrorist militias]. This is the ISIS [i.e., the “Islamic State” terrorist militia] of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against . . . Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything [involving the terrorist militias]. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”

On 12 October 2023, Mr Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, stated, referring to Gaza:

“We are working, operating militarily according to rules of international law. Unequivocally. It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It is absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’état. But we are at war. We are at war. We are at war. We are defending our homes. We are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we’ll break their [i.e., the terrorist militias’] backbone.”

On 13 October 2023, Mr Israel Katz, then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure of Israel, stated on the “X” social media platform (formerly known as “Twitter”):

“We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in [G]aza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they [i.e., the terrorist militias] leave the world.”

Viewed in context, the foregoing statements clearly evince an intent to exterminate Hamas and the other Gazan terrorist organizations. However, per the Court’s absurd interpretation of the Genocide Convention, a State’s public threats to exterminate a terrorist militia evinces an intent to commit the crime of genocide. Extending the Court’s interpretation to its reductio ad absurdum, a State’s public threats to exterminate a terrorist militia, coupled with the actual extermination of that terrorist militia, would constitute the commission of the crime of genocide.

Moreover, in concluding that it was “plausible” that Israel intended to perpetuate genocide in Gaza and that it was on the verge of doing so, the Court ignored the many innovative mechanisms employed by Israel -- and only by Israel -- to avoid civilian casualties, the use of which indisputably negated the existence of such genocidal intent (e.g., the facilitation of humanitarian aid to Gaza in order to prevent famine and pestilence, the establishment of escape corridors and safe zones, the transmission of automated phone calls and text messages to the civilian population regarding those corridors and zones, the publication of daily maps showing the locations where Israeli attacks would take place, and the erection of tents and the construction of fields hospitals for the civilian population in those zones).

Of course, the Court had no choice but to pervert the legal principles of the Genocide Convention in order to erroneously conclude that it was “plausible” that Israel was on the verge of perpetrating genocide in Gaza. Unsurprisingly, no other State at war will ever accept such erroneous interpretations of the Genocide Convention, as this would mean that a State -- such as Israel -- which complies with the Laws of War might nonetheless be guilty of the crime of genocide. In light of the Court’s outrageous failure to consider whether a State’s compliance with the Laws of War would exempt that State from liability under the Genocide Convention, the Convention ought to be amended to provide for that exemption.

In the meantime, the U.N. Security Council issued Resolution no. 2712 of November 15, 2023 and Resolution no. 2720 of December 22, 2023, both of which omitted any reference to the invasion of Israel proper and the concomitant perpetration of horrific atrocities there on October 7, 2023, and neither of which condemned -- or even identified -- Hamas as the orchestrator thereof. Both of these resolutions focused almost exclusively upon the War’s effect on Gaza’s civilian population; and both of these resolutions demanded that Israel periodically halt its defensive military campaign by instituting frequent “humanitarian pauses” (Resolution no. 2712, operative paragraph 2; and Resolution no. 2720, preambular paragraph 2).

Finally, the U.N. Security Council issued Resolution no. 2728 of March 25, 2024, which significantly increased the pressure on Israel to cease its defensive military campaign. Like the two prior resolutions on the Gaza War, this Resolution also omitted any reference to the invasion or atrocities of October 7, 2023, and it also failed to condemn -- or even identify -- Hamas as the orchestrator thereof. Like the two prior resolutions, this Resolution also focused almost exclusively upon “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip” (Resolution no. 2728, preambular paragraph 4). However, in an escalatory departure from the two prior resolutions, which demanded that Israel institute “humanitarian pauses” (Resolution no. 2712, operative paragraph 2; and Resolution no. 2720, preambular paragraph 2), this Resolution demanded that Israel institute “an immediate ceasefire” (Resolution no. 2728, operative paragraph 1). While this Resolution also demanded “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages” (Resolution no. 2728, operative paragraph 1), it failed to condition that ceasefire upon the prior or simultaneous release of the hostages, meaning that Israel was expected to unilaterally terminate its defensive military campaign -- regardless of whether Gaza released any of the hostages. This Resolution, coupled with serial demands then being made upon Israel by many States (including the United States) for an immediate ceasefire, predictably led the leadership of Gaza to believe that it would not have to release any hostages in exchange for Israel’s termination of the War. U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 2728 states, in full, as follows:

Resolution 2728 (2024)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 9586th meeting, on

25 March 2024

The Security Council,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling all of its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,

Reiterating its demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and in this regard deploring all attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism, and recalling that the taking of hostages is prohibited under international law,

Expressing deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,

Acknowledging the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States, aimed at reaching a cessation of hostilities, releasing the hostages and increasing the provision and distribution of humanitarian aid,

1. Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain;

2. Emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023);

3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

The Resolution was approved by the 15-member Security Council via a lopsided vote of 14 “in favour” and 1 “abstain”. The abstention was by the United States (at the direction of President Joseph Biden). That abstention functioned as the decisive vote “in favour” of the Resolution due to the unused veto power held by the United States in its capacity as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. The refusal of the United States to veto this Resolution is what allowed the Resolution to pass. Hypocritically, even though the U.S. officially abstained on the Resolution, it actively participated in crafting its language. Tellingly, immediately after the Resolution was approved, the members of each Security Council delegation (including that of the United States) applauded in unison, thereby echoing their predecessors’ behavior after the passage of prior anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolution no. 2334 of December 23, 2016, which also passed due only to the abstention of the United States (at the direction of U.S. President Barack Obama).

Ironically, at the beginning of the meeting which resulted in the vote on U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 2728 of March 25, 2024, the U.N. Security Council observed a moment of silence for the victims of Islamic State’s terrorist attack against Russia -- a respectful commemoration never extended to the victims of Gaza’s terrorist attack against Israel.

Predictably, the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the Palestinian Authority not only refused to condemn the invasion and concomitant atrocities of October 7, 2023, but it celebrated the barbaric incident as an act of self-defense against the “Occupation”.

Unsurprisingly, based upon manufactured data provided by Hamas, the U.N. system and the vast majority of member States (including most States that had initially issued statements in solidarity with Israel and in support of its right to robustly defend itself) soon began to accuse Israel of randomly bombing Gaza, thereby causing too many civilian casualties.

However, by definition, a bombing campaign that harms combatants and civilians in proportion to their population percentages is statistically random, while a bombing campaign that harms combatants and civilians in disproportion to their population percentages is statistically purposive. The available evidence refutes any claim that Israel either randomly bombed the Gazan population or targeted Gazan civilians. On the contrary, it proves that Israel targeted only members of the Gazan terrorist militias.

Of course, in accusing Israel of randomly bombing Gaza and of thereby harming too many civilians, the World eagerly ignored the following:

(1) Gazan casualty data was being provided to the World by the Hamas-controlled Gaza “Health Ministry” on a daily basis. Hamas had an obvious interest in inflating and manipulating the casualty figures in a hugely-successful effort to

(a) demonize Israel; and

(b) generate worldwide pressure (especially from Israel’s major allies, such as the United States, Britain, and Germany) for the cancellation of Israel’s defensive military campaign against Hamas and the other Gazan terrorist militias.

This Hamas-manufactured data was then laundered through the Gazan branches of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Health Organization, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, and other Gaza-based U.N. system components in order to legitimize the data without subjecting it to independent verification, despite the obvious defects in such data.

For example, on October 19, 2023, the Gaza “Health Ministry” surrealistically reported that a total of 307 Gazans had been killed by Israel, of which 671 were children, without explaining how that day’s number of allegedly-killed Gazan children could have mathematically exceeded that day’s total number of allegedly-killed Gazans. Moreover, that same fantastical formulation was repeated by the Gaza “Health Ministry” on many other dates.

Moreover, even if Hamas did not have a strategic motive for fabricating casualty data, the chaotic conditions prevailing in wartime Gaza constituted a formidable obstacle to the orderly and accurate tabulation of casualties -- especially on a daily basis.

(2) Although approximately 20% of Gazan rockets and mortars landed in Gaza (meaning that approximately 20% of Gazan casualties were caused by misfired Gazan projectiles rather than by Israeli bombs), the Hamas-controlled Gaza “Health Ministry” attributed 100% of alleged Gazan casualties to Israel’s bombing campaign.

(3) Although Israel killed and injured many thousands of Gazan combatants, the Hamas-controlled Gaza “Health Ministry” did not provide any breakdown between alleged civilian casualties and alleged combatant casualties, thereby treating 100% of alleged Gazan casualties as civilian deaths and injuries. By this subterfuge, Hamas was able to obscure the fact that a significant percentage of alleged Gazan casualties -- estimated by Israel to be at least one third of the total Gazan casualties reported by Hamas -- were combatants. Based upon the foregoing Israeli estimate of dead and injured Gazan combatants, and taking into account that misfired Gazan projectiles were also responsible for a significant percentage of Gazan casualties, then Israel, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad aggregately subjected Gaza to a 2:1 multi-belligerent civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio -- even if the Hamas-claimed casualty figures are deemed accurate.

However, if the Hamas-claimed casualty figures are adjusted for the percentage of casualties inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles, then approximately 41% of the Gazan casualties inflicted by Israel comprised combatants, which means that Israel subjected Gaza to a much lower 1.4:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio -- even if the Hamas-claimed casualty figures are deemed accurate. Both the foregoing percentage and the foregoing ratio were based upon the following calculation:

(a) 20% of the total casualties were inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles (all of which were civilians);

(b) 33% of the total casualties were terrorists harmed by Israel;

(c) 47% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by Israel (calculated as follows: 80% of total casualties were inflicted by Israel less 33% of total casualties were terrorists harmed by Israel = 47% of total casualties were civilians harmed by Israel);

(d) 33% of the total casualties were terrorists harmed by Israel divided by 80% of total casualties were inflicted by Israel = 41% of Israel-inflicted casualties were terrorists; and

(e) 47% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by Israel divided by 33% of total casualties were terrorists harmed by Israel = a 1.4:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio inflicted by Israel.

Either civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio (i.e., a 2:1 ratio inflicted by all belligerents or a 1.4:1 ratio inflicted by Israel) compares favorably with the normative civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio of 9:1 that has been endured in all other wars in modern History, meaning that, in this War, Israel harmed a much smaller percentage of noncombatants than has been harmed in any other war in modern History.

The normative civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio of 9:1 was confirmed in a U.N. Security Council media statement (identified as U.N. document SC/14904 of May 25, 2022), which summarized a debate hosted by the Council on minimizing wartime civilian casualties. That media statement was captioned “Ninety Per Cent of War-Time Casualties Are Civilians, Speakers Stress, Pressing Security Council to Fulfil Responsibility, Protect Innocent People in Conflicts”, the first paragraph of which stated:

“With civilians accounting for nearly 90 per cent of war-time casualties and humanitarians threatened with arrest for providing aid to “the enemy”, the Security Council simply must do more to ensure the protection of innocent people caught amid the conflicts raging around the world, experts from the field told the 15-nation organ today, as over 70 delegates denounced its inaction and explored ways to stanch the suffering during the all-day debate.”

The accuracy of the foregoing normative civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio is exemplified by two drone attacks personally authorized by U.S. President Barack Obama in Waziristan, Pakistan on January 23, 2009, which killed one terrorist and 10 civilians, four of whom were children. These two attacks represent an even-higher 10:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio.

Yet, does 41% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties being combatants actually refute the widespread accusation that Israel randomly bombed the Gazan population? Alternatively expressed, could Israel have achieved a 1.4:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio by randomly bombing the Gazan population? Well, no. Achieving a 1.4:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio by randomly bombing the Gazan population mathematically requires that Gaza’s civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio be roughly equal to Gaza’s civilian-to-combatant population ratio. An equivalence between these ratios is necessary in order to support the hypothesis that 41% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties being combatants is consistent with a random bombing campaign, because 41% of the Gazan population were also combatants. However, were 41% of the Gazan population actually combatants in 2023? Alternatively expressed, did Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other Gazan terrorist militias have 861,000 combatants in this period (i.e., 2,100,000 estimated population of Gaza in 2023 x 41%)? Obviously not. On the contrary, the number of terrorist militia members in Gaza during this period is estimated to have been 50,000 in this period. While this a huge number of well-trained terrorists, it is nonetheless a number which constituted less than 2.4% of the estimated population of Gaza in this period. Consequently, it is statistically impossible for Israel to have so disproportionately harmed Gazan combatants (thereby achieving an extremely-low 1.4:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio) by randomly bombing the Gazan population.

Alternatively stated, if Israel had randomly bombed the Gazan population, then only 2.4% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties -- rather than 41% thereof -- would have been combatants; and a massive 97.6% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties -- rather than only 59% thereof -- would have been civilians.

Moreover, if Israel had targeted Gazan civilians (thereby statistically causing many more civilian casualties than would have been caused by a random bombing campaign), then much less than 2.4% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties -- rather than 41% thereof -- would have been combatants.

However, even if the Gazan casualties inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles are ignored, and every Gazan casualty is instead treated as if that casualty was inflicted by Israel (meaning that 33% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties -- rather than 41% of the Israel-inflicted Gazan casualties -- were combatants), thereby resulting in a slightly-higher 2:1 civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio, it is still statistically impossible for Israel to have so disproportionately harmed Gazan combatants (thereby achieving that still very-low civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio) by randomly bombing the Gazan population.

Moreover, Israel’s

(a) facilitation of humanitarian aid to Gaza in order to prevent famine and pestilence,

(b) establishment of escape corridors and safe zones, and transmission of automated phone calls and text messages to the civilian population regarding those corridors and zones

(c) publication of daily maps showing the locations where Israeli attacks would take place, and

(d) erection of tents and construction of field hospitals for the civilian population in those zones

are all inconsistent with the conduct of a random bombing campaign against -- let alone a bombing campaign targeting civilians in -- Gaza.

(4) Although the Hamas-controlled Gaza “Health Ministry”, implausibly claimed that 70% of alleged Gazan casualties were women and children, it did not disclose the number, percentage or identities of these casualties who were military-age children (i.e., 15 - 17 years old). This is relevant information, because -- even assuming the accuracy of the child casualty figures reported by Hamas -- a significant number of the military-age teenage casualties were likely to have been combatants.

Moreover, Hamas’ claim that approximately 70% of alleged Gazan casualties were women and children could only have been accurate if either of the following were true:

(a) The “random bombing” metric was achieved. As the Hamas-claimed women & children casualty percentage is roughly equal to the Hamas-claimed women & children population percentage in Gaza, the Hamas-claimed women & children casualty percentage could have been accurate if Israel had randomly bombed Gaza, as, in that case, the Hamas-claimed casualty breakdown would have roughly mirrored the Hamas-claimed population breakdown. However, as proven by the above statistical analysis (which highlights the disproportionality of Gazan combatant casualties), Israel targeted only Gazan combatants. Consequently, Hamas’ claim that 70% of alleged Gazan casualties were women and children is proven false according to the “random bombing” metric.

-- or --

(b) The “combatant breakdown” metric was achieved. Alternatively, despite the fact that Israel targeted only Gazan combatants, thereby inflicting disproportionate harm on those combatants, the Hamas-claimed women & children casualty percentage could have been accurate if the combatant breakdown was equivalent to the Hamas-claimed population breakdown (meaning that 70% of both groups were women and children), as, in that case, the Hamas-claimed casualty breakdown would have roughly mirrored both the combatant breakdown and the equivalent population breakdown. However, women and/or children never constituted a significant share -- let alone 70% -- of the terrorist militias in Gaza. On the contrary, the vast majority of Gazan combatants (as well as Gazan combatant casualties) in this period were adult men. Consequently, Hamas’ claim that 70% of alleged Gazan casualties were women and children is also proven false according to the “combatant breakdown” metric.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and assuming arguendo that the Hamas-claimed women & children population percentage in Gaza was accurate (rather than -- like much of the Hamas-reported data -- manufactured for propaganda purposes), it might be true that 70% of the collateral damage casualties (i.e., civilians unintentionally harmed by Israel) comprised women and children, as it is statistically probable that the collateral damage breakdown would roughly mirror the population breakdown. In contrast, Hamas ignored the distinction between combatant casualties and collateral damage casualties, and instead claimed that 70% of the total casualties (i.e., both terrorist militia members and civilians) comprised women and children. However, as stated above, due to the disproportionate harm inflicted by Israel upon Gazan combatants, the vast majority of which were adult men, the percentage of women and children among total casualties inflicted by Israel -- rather than only among the collateral damage casualties inflicted by Israel -- was significantly less than 70%.

In fact, assuming arguendo that the Hamas-claimed women & children population percentage in Gaza (i.e., 70% of the population) was accurate, then the percentage of women and children among the Israel-inflicted casualties was approximately 41.3%, calculated as follows:

(a) 41% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were combatants, meaning that 59% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were civilians; and

(b) 59% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were civilians x 70% of the population that comprised women and children = 41.3% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were women and children.

The same data can be restated as follows:

(a) 41.0% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were combatants;

(b) 17.7% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were civilian adult men; and

(c) 41.3% of the Israel-inflicted casualties were women and children.

It is noteworthy that while 41.3% of the casualties inflicted by Israel were women and children, a much larger 70.0% of the casualties inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles were women and children.

However, if this analysis is broadened beyond Gazan casualties inflicted only by Israel to include Gazan casualties inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles, then the percentage of total casualties who were women and children harmed by Israel is approximately 32.9%, the percentage of total casualties who were women and children harmed by misfired Gazan projectiles is approximately 14.0%, and the percentage of total casualties who were women and children harmed by all belligerents is approximately 46.9%. The foregoing percentages were calculated as follows:

(a) 80% of the total casualties were inflicted by Israel, with 33% of the total casualties being combatants harmed by Israel and 47% of the total casualties being civilians harmed by Israel;

(a) 20% of the total casualties were inflicted by misfired Gazan projectiles, with 0% of the total casualties being combatants harmed by misfired Gazan projectiles and 20% of the total casualties being civilians harmed by misfired Gazan projectiles;

(c) 47% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by Israel x 70% of the population that comprised women and children = 32.9% of the total casualties were women and children harmed by Israel;

(d) 20% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by misfired Gazan projectiles x 70% of the population that comprised women and children = 14.0% of the total casualties were women and children harmed by misfired Gazan projectiles;

(e) 67% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by all belligerents (calculated as follows: 47% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by Israel + 20% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by misfired Gazan projectiles); and

(f) 67% of the total casualties were civilians harmed by all belligerents x 70% of the population that comprised women and children = 46.9% of the total casualties were women and children harmed by all belligerents

The same data can be restated as follows:

1. Percentage Breakdown of Total Casualties that were inflicted by Israel (80%):

(a) 33.0% of the total casualties were combatants harmed by Israel;

(b) 14.1% of the total casualties were civilian adult men harmed by Israel; and

(c) 32.9% of the total casualties were women and children harmed by Israel

2. Percentage Breakdown of Total Casualties that were inflicted by Misfired Gazan Projectiles (20%):

(a) 00.0% of the total casualties were combatants harmed by Misfired Gazan Projectiles;

(b) 06.0% of the total casualties were civilian adult men harmed by Misfired Gazan Projectiles; and

(c) 14.0% of the total casualties were women and children harmed by Misfired Gazan Projectiles

3. Percentage Breakdown of Total Casualties that were inflicted by All Belligerents (100%):

(a) 33.0% of the total casualties were combatants harmed by all belligerents;

(b) 20.1% of the total casualties were civilian adult men harmed by all belligerents; and

(c) 46.9% of the total casualties were women and children harmed by all belligerents

This data is reproduced below in the form of a chart:

BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL CASUALTIES IN GAZA

		COMBATANTS		CIVILIAN ADULT MEN		WOMEN & CHILDREN		TOTALS
BY ISRAEL	33.0%		14.1%		32.9%		80.0%
BY MISFIRED GAZAN PROJECTILES	0.0%		6.0%		14.0%		20.0%
TOTALS	33.0%		20.1%		46.9%		100.0%

The reason that the women & children casualty rate increased from 32.9% of the total casualties (inflicted by Israel) to 46.9% of the total casualties (inflicted by all belligerents) when misfired Gazan projectiles were included in the analysis is that those projectiles caused a much higher casualty rate among Gazan women and children (i.e., 70.0%) than did Israeli bombs (i.e., 41.3%), meaning that -- proportionately -- misfired Gazan projectiles were more deadly to Gazan women and children than were Israeli bombs.

(5) For purposes of the Laws of War, it is not the number of enemy civilian casualties that matters, but rather:

(a) the military context in which those casualties are being inflicted; and

(b) the extent to which the inflicting army is providing the enemy civilian population with a realistic opportunity to flee or avoid combat zones.

(6) 100% of Gazan casualties were ultimately caused by the illegal decisions of Hamas and its accomplices to:

(a) invade Israel proper and perpetrate horrific barbarities during that invasion; and

(b) embed their armed personnel, munitions, and projectile factories within Gaza’s civilian population near, inside, and (via a vast tunnel network) underneath mosques, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and U.N. facilities, thereby converting these civilian sites into legitimate military targets under the Laws of War -- despite the nearby presence of civilians, including women and children.

Yet, does the extremely-low Israel-inflicted civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio prove that Israel did not commit any war crimes in Gaza? Well, no. That is because even such a low civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio overall cannot erase the possibility that some Israeli military personnel, against operational orders, might have targeted civilians during any particular wartime incident. In light of the possibility that some Israeli military personnel might target civilians -- but also in light of the fact that Gaza’s terrorist militias have embedded their armed personnel, munitions, and projectile factories within Gaza’s urban areas, thereby converting Gaza’s entire civilian population into human shields -- it bears reiterating that, as the infliction of civilian casualties during a military engagement in such an environment is unavoidable, the infliction of such casualties -- even large numbers of such casualties -- does not constitute intrinsic evidence that such civilians were targeted (rather than constituting collateral damage casualties) during that military engagement. That is why Israel habitually investigates the circumstances under which civilians (or alleged civilians) have been killed (or allegedly killed) by its military personnel.

However, in light of all the foregoing, why did the U.N. system, many member States, regional organizations, and international “human rights” organizations either ignore or only perfunctorily condemn Gaza’s invasion and concomitant atrocities of October 7, 2023 before pivoting to an exclusive and condemnatory focus on Israel’s justified reaction thereto? The reason is that treating Israel as a victim of aggression and Gaza as a perpetrator of aggression by acknowledging or lingering on the invasion and atrocities of October 7, 2023 would have upended the internationally-approved anti-Israel narrative, which declares that democratically-ruled Israel is an “Oppressor” entity, while Hamas-ruled Gaza is an “Oppressed” entity. For, maintaining Israel’s status as an “Oppressor” has always been integral to the coordinated international campaign that seeks to inhibit the Jewish State from using its full military power to robustly defend itself against an armed attack -- even against a genocidal onslaught. The “Palestinian” leadership and its allies have always understood that it was only by demonizing the Jewish State as an “Oppressor” (via worldwide anti-Israel protests, anti-Israel lawfare, condemnatory U.N. resolutions, condemnatory statements by many member States, condemnatory statements by regional organizations, condemnatory reports issued by international “human rights” organizations, and condemnatory media coverage, all falsely accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing) that Israel’s robust reaction to an armed attack could be blunted, thereby neutralizing Israel’s military advantage over its enemies.

The foregoing view of Israel as the “Oppressor”, which can do no Right, and the “Palestinians”, including the terrorist militias among them, as the “Oppressed”, who can do no Wrong, was exemplified by the statement published on the social media platform “X” (formerly known as “Twitter”) on June 8, 2024 by Francesca Albanese, in her role as the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967”, to which role she was appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, after Israeli commandos rescued four hostages from captivity in Gaza, to wit:

“Relieved that four hostages have been released. It should not have come at the expense of at least 200 Palestinians, including children, killed and over 400 injured by Israel and allegedly foreign soldiers, while perfidiously hiding in an aid truck. This is "humanitarian camouflage" at another level.

Israel has used hostages to legitimise killing, injuring, maiming, starving and traumatising Palestinians in Gaza. And while intensifying violence against Palestinians in the rest of the occupied territory and Israel.

Israel could have freed all hostages, alive and intact, 8 months ago when the first ceasfire [sic] and hostage exchange was put on the table. Yet, Israel refused in order to continue to destroy Gaza and the Palestinians as a people.

This is genocidal intent turned into action. Crystal clear.”

Unsurprisingly, this U.N. official accepted and regurgitated the inflated Gazan casualty figures published by the Hamas-controlled Gaza “Health Ministry”, which further inflated the number of Gazans killed during the foregoing rescue operation from 200 to 300 only two days after her statement was published. Furthermore, she ignored the fact that many, if not most, of the Gazans casualties were caused, not by the rescuers, but rather by Hamas’ crude attempts to kill the rescuers and the liberated hostages by indiscriminately firing rocket-propelled grenades into the crowded area through which they had to traverse in order to reach safety in Israel proper.

She also accepted as true, without waiting for independent verification, Hamas’ allegations that U.S. soldiers participated in the rescue mission, and that the Israeli commando team had concealed itself inside a truck that was delivering humanitarian aid to Gazans. These two allegations were made by Hamas and were consequently repeated by this U.N. official in order to help salvage Hamas’ bruised “dignity” by implicitly asserting that Israel was incapable of rescuing these hostages on its own and/or without resort to subterfuge.

Moreover, she falsely asserted that Israel had prevented the release of all the hostages during a November 2023 truce, as that truce was violated, not by Israel, but by Hamas when it resumed its missile and mortar attacks against Israel instead of releasing additional hostages, as had been earlier agreed.

Clearly, this U.N. official believes that it is illegitimate -- and an example of “genocidal intent turned into action” -- for Israel to use military force to rescue any of the hostages held in Gaza unless that rescue mission can be accomplished without harm to alleged civilians -- even though some of those alleged civilians had imprisoned the hostages inside their homes.

This U.N. official further believes that, because these hostages were imprisoned within a civilian population center, Israel has no right to obtain their release except via negotiations with a genocidal enemy.

However, unsurprisingly, her statement ignored the fact that Hamas consistently refused to provide Israel with a list of living hostages during those negotiations, and that Hamas insisted that any negotiated number of hostages to be released during any hostage release phase would include a mixture of living and dead hostages, as determined exclusively by Hamas, which would remain undisclosed to Israel, and consequently to the families of the hostages, until such release happened. In this context, it is noteworthy that, after murdering several of the hostages, Hamas absurdly declared that it did not know and that it did not matter whether any of the hostages to be released were alive or dead, as Hamas’ price for their release would not be reduced to mirror any reduction in the number of living hostages. From Hamas’ perspective, this paradigm permitted it to murder hostages without endangering the benefits that it expected to reap from the international pressure being exerted on Israel to terminate its defensive war against Gaza before vanquishing Hamas and the other Gazan terrorist militias.

Her statement further ignored the fact that, for those negotiations to be successful, Israel would be required to make extreme concessions, such as (a) the release of thousands of imprisoned terrorists in exchange for a much lesser number of living and dead hostages, (b) Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza, (c) Israel’s termination of its aerial surveillance of Gaza, and (d) a “permanent” ceasefire which would permit the Gazan terrorist militias to reconstitute their personnel, missile and mortar factories, munitions, and tunnel systems, so that they will be able to repeat the barbarities of October 7, 2023 when their offensive capabilities were fully restored.

It is telling that her statement neither condemned Hamas for abducting the hostages nor for imprisoning them within several Gazan civilian population centers. In fact, her statement omitted any mention of Hamas -- as if Israel were the only belligerent in a war commenced by Hamas (and its Gazan allies).

Significantly, the present-day “Palestinian” assertion (which was accepted as indisputably true by the U.N. system, many member States, regional organizations, international “human rights” organizations, and virtually all international media outlets) that the Jewish State murdered Gazan children for genocidal purposes constituted a reappearance of the medieval blood libel that Jews murdered Gentile children for ritualistic purposes. Consequently, notwithstanding the many fact-based refutations of this present-day accusation, it -- like its medieval ancestor -- has become an article of faith so powerful that is not susceptible to empirical refutation.

However, assuming arguendo that Israel was indisputably guilty of perpetrating a genocide against Gazan Muslims, that merely places Israel in the same camp as Russia (regarding Chechen Muslims), China (regarding Uyghur Muslims), Syria (regarding Sunni Arab Muslims), Turkiye (regarding Kurdish Muslims), and Myanmar (regarding Rohingya Muslims). Yet, in contrast to worldwide revulsion against the foregoing Israeli-perpetrated “genocide”, there has never been any international outrage, international demonization campaigns, or worldwide protests by “human rights” activists against any of these other States in reaction to the genocides perpetrated by them. Why? -- because none of those States are populated and governed by Jews! The fact that Israel is the one and only Jewish State is what motivates international revulsion against its alleged crimes and international opposition to its continued existence -- especially during those times when Israel has been forced to defend itself against enemies who are actually attempting to commit genocide.

In the context of Gazan casualties, and in a misguided effort to lessen the worldwide condemnation against its military campaign in Gaza, Israel repeatedly stressed that it was engaged in war only against Hamas (and the other Gazan terrorist organizations) rather than against Gaza itself or the resident population thereof, thereby implying a wartime distinction between (1) a government and (2) the State (or territory) and the resident population thereof ruled by that government. Such a distinction does not exist and has never existed, as the wartime aggression ordered and implemented by a government is legally and logically attributable to the State (or territory) and the resident population thereof ruled by that government. For example, although during World War II, many Germans opposed their government’s attempt to conquer the World and to annihilate the Jewish people, and some even risked their lives to shelter Jews or to otherwise thwart their government’s agenda, none of the States engaged in war against Nazi Germany pretended on account thereof that they were fighting only against the German government rather than against Germany itself and its resident population. That war was always -- and correctly -- framed as being against Nazi Germany and its resident population (which were viewed as a collective enemy both during that war and for a time thereafter) -- despite the fact that opponents of the Nazi regime were also part of that enemy population. Consequently, at the outset, for the sake of both domestic and international clarity, Israel should have identified Gaza and its resident population as the collective enemy against which it was being forced by the invasion and atrocities of October 7, 2023 to defend itself.

The correctness of identifying Gaza’s resident population as an enemy population is confirmed by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s wartime Public Opinion Poll no. 90, published December 13, 2023, which revealed, inter alia, that -- despite the widespread death, destruction, and displacement being inflicted upon Gaza by Israel’s defensive military campaign -- 57.00% of Gazan Arabs nonetheless believed that Gaza’s invasion of Israel proper constituted a “correct decision”, and 50.00% of Gazan Arabs nonetheless believed that Gaza would “emerge victorious” in its war against Israel.

That opinion poll stated:

Under the section entitled “(1) October the 7th and the War in Gaza”, under the subsection entitled “1. Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive”:

“We asked the respondents what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive given its outcome so far, a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said it was a correct decision, and 22% (12% in the West Bank and 37% in the Gaza Strip) said it was incorrect.”

…

Under the section entitled “(1) October the 7th and the War in Gaza”, under the subsection entitled “5. When will the war stop and who will win?”:

“While the vast majority of West Bankers (70%) thinks Hamas will emerge victorious in this war, only half of Gazans think the same. Similarly, while only 1% in the West Bank think Israel will emerge victorious, almost one third of Gazans (31%) think that; 14% (12% in the West Bank and 18% in the Gaza Strip) think neither one will emerge victorious.”

It is noteworthy that, in the same poll, 82.00% of “West Bank” Arabs nonetheless believed that Gaza’s invasion of Israel proper constituted a “correct decision”, and 70.00% of “West Bank” Arabs nonetheless believed that Gaza would “emerge victorious” in its war against Israel. The higher levels of wartime bellicosity and optimism among “West Bank” Arabs than among Gazan Arabs was likely due to the fact that the former were not experiencing the death, destruction, and displacement being inflicted upon the latter.

Consequently, it is likely that most of the 37.00% of Gazan Arabs in that poll who -- in light of Israel’s devastating military campaign in Gaza -- did not believe that Gaza’s invasion of Israel proper constituted a “correct decision” were more swayed by the disastrous consequences suffered by Gaza as a result of that decision than by any moral qualms about the atrocities perpetrated by Gaza as a result of that decision.

An earlier wartime poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development, published November 14, 2023, revealed similar results.

In response to the question in Table 25: “Do you believe that Palestine or Israel will emerge victorious from this war?”:

66.40% of Gazan Arabs (as well as 77.00% of “West Bank” Arabs, resulting in 72.60% of all resident “Palestinians”) predicted that “Palestine” would be the victor.

In response to the question in Table 27: “How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?”:

63.60% of Gazan Arabs (as well as 83.10% of “West Bank” Arabs, resulting in 75.00% of all resident “Palestinians”) declared that they either “Extremely support” or “Somewhat support” the invasion and massacre.

In response to the question in Table 29: “How do you view the role of the following parties”:

79.10% of Gazan Arabs (as well as 95.40% of “West Bank” Arabs, resulting in 88.60% of all resident “Palestinians”) declared that they view “Al Kassam” as either “Very positive” or “Somewhat positive”.

“Al Kassam”, also spelled “al-Qassam”, is formally known as the “Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades”; and it is the Hamas strike force that led the invasion of and orchestrated the massacre in Israel proper on October 7, 2023.

In response to the question in Table 33: “Do you support the solution of establishing one state or two states in the following formats”:

70.40% of Gazan Arabs (as well as 77.70% of “West Bank” Arabs, resulting in 74.70% of all resident “Palestinians”) declared that they support “A Palestinian state from the river to the sea” (i.e., the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea) -- with the other choices being:

(a) “One-State Solution for Two Peoples” supported by 2.20% of Gazan Arabs (as well as 7.70% of “West Bank” Arabs, resulting in 5.40% of all resident “Palestinians”), and

(b) “Two-State Solution for Two Peoples” supported by 22.70% of Gazan Arabs (as well as 13.30% of “West Bank” Arabs, resulting in 17.20% of all resident “Palestinians”).

However, a comparison of the foregoing November 2023 poll results with the foregoing December 2023 poll results confirms that Gazan support for the atrocities of October 2023 (63.60% à 57.00%) and Gazan optimism for a victory against Israel (66.40% à 50.00%) both diminished as Israel’s defensive military campaign in Gaza progressed.

Counterintuitively, despite the fact that, by March 2024, Israel had conquered all of Gaza except for its southernmost city of Rafah, Gazan support for the atrocities of October 2023, increased to 71.00% in the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s Public wartime Opinion Poll no. 91, published March 20, 2024 (while “West Bank” support therefor decreased to 71.00%, resulting in total resident “Palestinian” support therefor of 71.00%). As the poll stated:

Under the section entitled “1) October the 7th and the War in Gaza”, under the subsection entitled “1. Support for Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive remains unchanged”:

“As we did in our previous poll three months ago, we asked the respondents in this poll what they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive. A vast majority of 71%, compared to 72% in December 2023, say it was correct. However, despite the stability of the total response, the findings do show significant change when looking at the two areas separately. As the figure below shows, the perception that the decision of the offensive was correct drops in the West Bank by 11 points and increases in the Gaza Strip by 14 points [from 57% in the December 2023 poll to 71% in the March 2024 poll].”

It is likely that the March 2024 increase in Gazan support for the atrocities of October 2023 was due to the intense international diplomatic pressure (primarily that being applied by the United States at the direction of President Joseph Biden) upon Israel not to enter Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah (which hosted the remaining leadership and personnel of the Gazan terrorist militias, as well as the surviving abductees), which led more Gazans (56.00%) to believe that Hamas would survive and thereby emerge victorious in the War. As the same poll stated:

Under the section entitled “1) October the 7th and the War in Gaza”, under the subsection entitled “6. Expectations regarding the ceasefire and who will win the war”:

“As we did in December 2023, we asked in the current poll “who will win” this war. Today, the majority expects Hamas to win. But it is a little smaller majority than we found three months ago, 64% [in March 2024] and 70% [in December 2023] respectively. It is worth noting, as indicated in the figure below, that today, more Gazans expect Hamas to win than three months ago, 56% [in March 2024] and 50% [in December 2023] respectively. By contrast, today, less West Bankers expect Hamas to win than three months ago, 69% [in March 2024] and 83% [in December 2023] respectively. It is worth noting also that while almost no one in the West Bank expect Israel to win the current war, almost one fifth (19%) of Gazans expect Israel to win. The current percent of those Gazans who expect Israel to win is more than a third less than the case three months ago, 19% [in March 2024] and 31% [in December 2023] respectively.”

Without regard to the foregoing wartime polls (whose results were necessarily influenced by the War’s effect on Gaza), the endemic hostility of Gazans towards Israel is confirmed by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research’s Public prewar Opinion Poll no. 88, published June 2023, which stated:

Under the section entitled “1) 75 years after the Nakba”:

“When asked whether the Palestinian people will be able in the future to regain Palestine and repatriate the refugees, a slim majority of 51% says that this will indeed happen while 45% believe that this will not happen. Belief that the Palestinian people are capable of recovering Palestine in the future is higher in the Gaza Strip (55%) compared to the West Bank (49%), among refugees (54%) compared to non-refugees (50%), among students (56%) compared to employees (48%) among those who work in the private sector (51%) compared to those who work in the public sector (46%), among the religious (56%) compared to the somewhat religious (49%), among those whose age is between 18 and 22 years (64%) compared to those whose age is 50 years and higher (50%), and among supporters of Hamas (63%) compared to supporters of Fateh [usually spelled: Fatah] and third parties (51% and 44% respectively).”

Under the section entitled “3) Armed escalation and a third intifada”:

“71% of the public (79% in the Gaza Strip and 66% in the West Bank) say they are in favor of forming armed groups, such as the “Lions’ Den” and the “Jenin Battalion” [both of which are dedicated to attacking Israel], which do not take orders from the PA [i.e., Palestinian Authority] and are not part of the PA security services; 23% are against that. Support for the formation of armed groups increases in the Gaza Strip (79%) compared to the West Bank (66%), in refugee camps and cities (85% and 72% respectively) compared to villages (61%), among those whose age is between 18 and 22 years (77%) compared to those whose age is 40 years and above (69%), among refugees (78%) compared to non-refugees (66%), among holders of BA degree (77%) compared to those with primary education (70%), among students (80%) compared to merchants (50%), among the unmarried (76%) compared to the married (70%) among the religious (76%) compared to the somewhat religious (68%), and among supporters of Hamas and third parties (86% and 76% respectively) compared to supporters of Fateh [usually spelled: Fatah] (65%) [which faction controls the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority].”

It is noteworthy that only 4 months before Gaza began to suffer the adverse consequences of its invasion of Israel proper, a significantly-higher percentage of Gazan Arabs (79%) than “West Bank” Arabs (66%) believed in the efficacy of creating independent militias to attack Israel. It is logical that Gaza’s prewar enthusiasm for attacking Israel diminished -- albeit still constituting majoritarian sentiment at 63.60% in the foregoing wartime November 2023 poll, and continuing to constitute majoritarian sentiment at 57.00% in the foregoing wartime December 2023 poll -- after Gaza began to experience those adverse consequences. However, there is no evidence that the diminution in Gaza’s prewar enthusiasm for attacking Israel was accompanied by any diminution in its prewar hatred towards or desire for the destruction of the Jewish State. On the contrary, the foregoing wartime November 2023 poll reveals that 70.40% of Gazan Arabs supported the establishment of a “Palestinian” State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., the destruction of Israel). The foregoing genocidal wartime sentiment is consistent with the results of the foregoing prewar June 2023 poll revealing that 55% of Gazan Arabs believed that the destruction of Israel was achievable, and that 79% of Gazan Arabs supported the creation of independent militias to attack Israel, presumably in furtherance of that genocidal objective. Moreover, despite the War’s adverse consequences for Gaza, the latter’s enthusiasm for attacking Israel rebounded from 57.00% to 71.00% in the foregoing wartime March 2024 poll.

Consequently, publicly identifying Gaza and its resident population as the enemy against which Israel was being forced by the invasion and atrocities of October 7, 2023 to defend itself would have been both accurate and appropriate.

Unsurprisingly, as soon as Israel began its military response to Gaza’s horrific invasion of Israel proper, the U.N. system and member States began to provide all kinds of humanitarian aid to the aggressor (i.e., Gaza), but it provided none to the victim (i.e., Israel) -- despite the fact that approximately 200,000 Israelis were displaced by the simultaneous wars initiated by Hamas-controlled Gaza and by Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.

Unfortunately, the U.N. system and most member States habitually ignore and often justify terrorist onslaughts by Gaza against Israel based upon the false assertion that Israel occupies the “West Bank” and Gaza. This principal falsehood leads to the corollary falsehood that “occupied Palestine” has an internationally-recognized legal right to “resist” Israel by any means, however barbaric, regardless of whether such conduct complies with or violates the Laws of War, as delineated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the earlier Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. However, the claim that international law permits -- let alone endorses -- an unfettered “right of resistance” against Israel is false, because a belligerent, such as Hamas-ruled Gaza, which is not a signatory the Geneva Conventions or the Fourth Hague Convention, is not entitled to the protections of those Conventions during its war against Israel unless it voluntarily complies with the provisions thereof in the conduct of that war.

As stated in the Geneva Conventions:

Article 2. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

(Geneva Conventions, common Article 2, Paragraph 3)

As stated in the Fourth Hague Convention:

Article 2. The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

Article 6. Non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Convention. The Power which desires to adhere notifies in writing its intention to the Netherlands Government, forwarding to it the act of adhesion, which shall be deposited in the archives of the said Government. This Government shall at once transmit to all the other Powers a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of adhesion, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.

(Fourth Hague Convention, Articles 2 & 6)

Alternatively stated, Gaza’s “right of resistance” against Israel must be conducted in compliance with the Laws of War if Gaza desires the protections afforded to belligerents by the Laws of War.

As Gaza has habitually refused to voluntarily comply with the Laws of War (before, on, and after October 7, 2023) by

(1) targeting Israel’s civilian population and Israel’s civilian infrastructure (e.g., synagogues, schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings), and

(2) placing its military assets (e.g., personnel, drones, missiles, mortars, and other munitions) near, inside and (via a vast tunnel network) underneath civilian infrastructure (e.g., mosques, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and U.N. facilities),

Gaza was not entitled to any of the protections afforded to belligerents by the Laws of War.

This also means that Israel was not bound by any of the Conventions with respect to

(a) its conduct of such war and/or

(b) its administration of any territory reacquired during such war.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in its war of self-defense against Gaza, Israel did voluntarily comply with the Laws of Wars, not only as delineated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (to which it is a signatory), but also as delineated in the earlier Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 (to which it is not a signatory).

A two-pronged Hypocrisy was triggered by Gaza’s October 7, 2023 attack against Israel.

The first prong of this Hypocrisy involved international reaction to Israel’s retaliation against Gaza. For, on the day after Gaza’s invasion of Israel proper and its perpetration of concomitant atrocities, people fraudulently describing themselves as “human rights” activists -- who were actually anti-Israel polemicists and pro-Hamas apologists -- began to serially stage huge protests and riots throughout the World (including in the United States), demanding an immediate ceasefire almost three weeks before Israel’s reactive ground invasion of Gaza had even begun, which did not happen until October 27, 2023. As the War progressed, these activists, in their role as anti-Israel polemicists, accused Israel of “genocide” (due to the alleged number of Gazan casualties, even though significant percentages of those casualties were Gazan combatants and/or were caused by misfired Gazan projectiles) and “ethnic cleansing” (due to the alleged number of Gazans who temporarily fled from combat zones to safer areas within Gaza).

As part of their “genocide” accusation, these anti-Israel polemicists also accused Israel of engineering a “famine” in Gaza, despite the fact that substantially more food, water, fuel, and medical supplies were being delivered to Gaza after October 7, 2023 than before that date, and despite the fact that, under the Laws of War, a belligerent has no obligation to provide aid (including humanitarian aid) to an enemy population. That Hamas was stealing much of that aid and then reselling a portion thereof to its own population at exorbitant prices did not prevent these activists from continuing to blame Israel for this nonexistent famine.

Unsurprisingly, these activists, in their role as pro-Hamas apologists, neither condemned Hamas for its perpetration of a massacre on October 7, 2023, nor for its missile fire and mortar fire into Israel’s civilian population centers on that day and continuing throughout the succeeding months -- resulting in more than 10,000 projectiles having been fired into Israel as of May 2024. And none of these activists demanded of Hamas that it release the civilians whom it had illegally abducted. Furthermore, none of them demanded that Hamas cease stealing international aid meant for Gaza’s civilian population.

Moreover, at all of these protests, signs condemning an alleged ongoing genocide against the “Palestinians” comfortably coexisted with signs supporting a future genocide against the Jewish people. Examples of those genocidal placards were those that made the following demands:

“Globalize the Intifada”, and

“Burn Tel Aviv to the ground”, and

“10,000 October 7ths”.

Additional genocidal placards proclaimed in rhyming verse:

“From the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, Palestine will be free”, and

“There is only one solution -- Intifada revolution”.

Finally, genocidal placards in the Arabic language proclaimed in rhyming verse:

“Min el-ma’iyeh l’el-ma’iyeh, Filastin arabiyeh” (meaning: “From the water [i.e., the Jordan River] to the water [i.e., the Mediterranean Sea] Palestine is Arab”).

Regarding those “human rights” activists who originally commenced their anti-Israel journey, not with demands for Israel’s destruction, but only with condemnations of the “Occupation”, how did such condemnations transform themselves into a moral justification for the destruction of Israel? In light of the collective territorial rights granted to the resident Jewish population of western Mandatory Palestine in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922, in light of the territorial rights subsequently retained by the State of Israel (as the collective representative of the resident Jewish population) in the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949, and in light of the territorial rights of Israel subsequently enshrined in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994, it is indisputable that Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem were reacquired by Israel from Jordan rather than occupied by Israel in June 1967. However, if -- despite the foregoing -- a person nonetheless erroneously believes that those districts were occupied by Israel, then it is a short analytical step from there to label the “Occupation” as Evil, and a short analytical step from there to also label the “Occupier” as Evil. It is another short analytical step from there to reason that if the “Occupier” is Evil, then it has no right to exist. And it is a final short analytical step from there to conclude that it is a moral imperative to call for the destruction of the “Occupier”, and to support those (e.g., Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the P.L.O., the Houthis, etc.) who are striving to accomplish that malevolent task. The foregoing analytical process illustrates why the erroneous nomenclature employed even by supporters of Israel -- such as incorrectly labeling Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as an Occupation rather than as a Reacquisition -- is so dangerous and self-defeating.

Yet, in the context of genocidal placards being held aloft by “human rights” activists declaring “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free”, it is indisputable that there is a mirror-image Jewish fealty to a Land of Israel that also stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. So, doesn’t a Jewish fealty to the Land of Israel from the River to the Sea exude the same genocidal intent as does an Arab fealty to a “State of Palestine” within those same borders? Well, no. There is a huge difference between the Arab aspiration for a “State of Palestine” from the River to the Sea, and Jewish fealty to a Land of Israel within those same borders. This difference exists because, from June 1967 through the present time, Israel already governs and/or has overall security control over that entire area -- and it accomplished that feat without destroying an existent Arab State and without annihilating the existent Arab residents of Israel proper or the existent Arab residents of the reacquired territories.

Alternatively stated, from June 1967 through the present time, a Land of Israel from the River to the Sea is already an established geopolitical fact. So, there is nothing genocidal about acknowledging that geopolitical fact -- especially as that geopolitical fact is the outcome of the (1) historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and (2) international law, as expressed via the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922, and as protected by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, as well as by the provisions of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949 and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994.

Conversely, a “State of Palestine” does not presently exist. Consequently, the aspiration to create such a State from the River to the Sea, as expressed in the foregoing placards, obviously entails the destruction of the existent Jewish State and the annihilation of its existent Jewish population.

The same comparison can be made between ubiquitous “Palestinian” Arab maps that display only a “State of Palestine” from the River to the Sea, and ubiquitous Israeli maps that display only a State of Israel within those same borders (although most Israeli maps also display the 1949 armistice demarcation lines). Why aren’t both maps equally offensive? The reason is that, as the State of Israel exists, and as the “State of Palestine” does not exist, such Israeli maps accurately portray an established geopolitical fact, while such “Palestinian” Arab maps portray only a genocidal aspiration.

The demand by these “human rights” activists for the perpetration of a genocide against the Jewish State severely undermined any notion that their parallel demand for an immediate ceasefire was a sincere plea for peace.

Furthermore, in order to present themselves as moral individuals advocating for the rights of an oppressed people, these activists, in their role as pro-Hamas apologists, adopted contradictory positions on the atrocities of October 7, 2023.

One faction of these pro-Hamas apologists professed not to have read or heard anything about atrocities perpetrated by Hamas against people in Israel proper on that day.

A second faction of apologists asserted that Israel was lying about Hamas’ perpetration of atrocities against people in Israel proper on that day, because Hamas was a “resistance” organization rather than a terrorist organization.

A third faction of apologists conceded that Hamas may have perpetrated atrocities against people in Israel proper on that day, but insisted that Hamas was forced to engage in such barbarities as part of its justified “escape” from the alleged “open-air prison” that is Gaza -- despite the fact that Gaza more accurately resembled an “open-air military base and munitions factory”.

However, this third faction failed to explain why the United Nations, virtually all member States thereof, the Arab League and the P.L.O. all demanded that Israel not do anything that would cause Gazans to flee from that “open-air prison”, and why these same parties concomitantly complained that such emigration from Gaza would cause an unacceptable reduction in the population of that “open-air prison”. Obviously, if Gaza was actually an “open-air prison”, then the entire World (including the entire Arab World) would not be demanding that Israel avoid depopulating it; and they would instead be facilitating the voluntary resettlement of the “prison inmates” elsewhere (e.g., Egypt) in order to provide the latter with a better life.

Tellingly, Israel is the only belligerent who has ever been pressured not to facilitate the voluntary relocation of an enemy population to a safer State. The World seeks to force an unwilling population to remain in Gaza, because it wants to enable that population to continue attacking Israel from an adjacent territorial base. This proves yet again that the World cares little for the “Palestinians” except to the extent that they are able to endanger Israel.

Furthermore, this third faction also failed to explain why Egypt (as Israel’s partner in “controlling” Gaza’s land crossings, and consequently as Israel’s partner in “occupying” Gaza) was spared from being targeted by Hamas during the latter’s “escape” from that “open-air prison”, especially as Egypt routinely denied entry to “Palestinians” who sought to flee from that “open-air prison”. Yet, the answer is as obvious as it is inconvenient to acknowledge. Hamas did not invade Egypt, and concomitantly slaughter and abduct the latter’s people, because the atrocities of October 7 had nothing to do with ending the alleged “siege” against Gaza (including Egypt’s role in that alleged “siege”), and everything to do with massacring Jews in the most barbaric ways possible, as the annihilation of the Jewish people is a fundamental tenet of Hamas’ ideology (see the Preamble, the Introduction, Article 7, and Article 23 of “The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement” of 1988, the relevant portions of which are reproduced elsewhere in this Essay).

Moreover, the fact that the predictable result of an immediate ceasefire would have been the preservation of Hamas’ rule in Gaza, and the concomitant preservation of its (and the other terrorist organizations’) command centers, munitions depots, and missile factories, thereby allowing Gaza to attack Israel ad infinitum did not cause any of these self-described “human rights” activists to reconsider the propriety of their demand for that immediate ceasefire.

Nonetheless, the demand for an immediate ceasefire was soon echoed and reiterated many times by components of the U.N. system, member States, regional organizations, international “human rights” organizations, and even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. And many of the foregoing (e.g., South Africa, Turkiye, Qatar, Jordan, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, the International Federation for Human Rights, etc.) also joined these “human rights” activists in accusing the Jewish State of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

However, assuming arguendo that Israel was indisputably guilty of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and every other atrocity of which it has been accused since its reestablishment in 1948. Would Israel’s commission of these horrific crimes mean that the Jewish State has no right to exist? If so, would the strident demand by “human rights” activists that Israel must be destroyed be morally justified on account thereof? The widespread claim that Israel has no right to exist, and the consequent demand that Israel must be destroyed, might be morally justified if any of these “human rights” activists also challenged the existence of and consequently demanded the destruction of other States (e.g., China, Russia, Turkiye, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, etc.) on account of their horrific crimes. However, as Israel is the only State whose right to exist is continuously challenged and whose destruction is habitually demanded on account of the latter’s alleged crimes, it is obvious that such challenge and demand are motivated, not by an authentic revulsion against those alleged crimes, but rather by a relentless hatred for the only Jewish State in the World -- which is motivated by an underlying hatred for the Jewish people.

Yet, is the continuing international opposition to self-determination for the Jewish people really evidence of any underlying hatred for the latter when the international community also opposes self-determination for other peoples (e.g., Kurds, Balochs, Gilakis, Basques, Circassians, Chechens, etc.)? Well, yes. That is because there is a difference between opposing a statehood that does not yet exist (which can be successfully accomplished without annihilating the ethnicity that is seeking self-determination), and reversing a statehood that already exists (which cannot be successfully accomplished without annihilating the ethnicity that has already achieved self-determination). Israel -- by virtue of being the nation-state of the Jewish people -- is the only State whose existence is deemed by much of the international community to be justifiably reversible.

Tellingly, Israel’s counter-invasion of Gaza has produced some nomenclatural cognitive dissonance for the worldwide community of anti-Israel polemicists (including components of the U.N. system, member States, regional organizations, international “human rights” organizations, and individual actors), as they have found themselves simultaneously

(a) claiming that Israel has been continuously occupying Gaza since June 1967, even after August 2005 (when Israel removed all Jews from Gaza), and

(b) condemning Israel’s counter-invasion of Gaza in October 2023 (which they deceptively labeled as an “invasion” in an attempt to obscure the fact that it was a defensive response to Gaza’s precipitating invasion of Israel proper).

For, although a State’s invasion (or counter-invasion) of a territory may legally and logically result in that State’s subsequent occupation of that same territory, a State’s preexisting occupation of a territory cannot legally or logically result in that State’s subsequent invasion (or counter-invasion) of that same territory. Alternatively stated, a State cannot invade (or counter-invade) what it already occupies. Consequently, if Israel was already occupying Gaza on October 7, 2023, then its subsequent entry into Gaza was incorrectly labeled as an “invasion” (or “counter-invasion”). Rather, if Israel was already occupying Gaza on October 7, 2023, then its subsequent entry into Gaza should instead have been labeled as a “military redeployment” by Israel. Conversely, a State’s entry into a territory that it does not occupy is correctly labeled as an “invasion” (or “counter-invasion”) of that territory -- as was the case with Israel’s counter-invasion of Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Assuming arguendo that a belligerent’s killing of civilians (regardless of the military context) always constitutes the perpetration of “genocide” by that belligerent, and that the concomitant flight of civilians from combat zones (regardless of the military context) always constitutes “ethnic cleansing” by that belligerent, then why did none of the foregoing “human rights” activists also condemn Gaza (or, at least, its Hamas government) for the precipitating genocide (i.e., the large-scale intentional targeting of Jewish civilians) and the precipitating ethnic cleansing (i.e., the engineered flight of Jewish civilians from their villages near Gaza) of October 7, 2023? The reason for this hypocrisy is that these activists were interested in condemning death, destruction, and displacement only if such crimes were allegedly perpetrated by the Jewish State. They had no interest in condemning any death, destruction, and displacement perpetrated against the Jewish State. Consequently, it is evident that, in selectively condemning genocide and ethnic cleansing, and in redefining these terms in order to falsely apply them to Israel’s exercise of self-defense against Gazan aggression, these activists were motivated only by their hatred of and desire to demonize the Jewish State, and not at all by their claimed revulsion over the death, destruction, and displacement suffered by innocent civilians (of whatever ethnicity).

Unsurprisingly, there was also a corollary hypocrisy attendant to the international reaction to Israel’s retaliation against Gaza. For, these same “human rights” activists -- who loudly proclaimed their fealty to protecting the human rights of the “Palestinians” -- were not at all bothered by the deprivations long suffered by “Palestinians” in Gaza and the “West Bank” if such deprivations were being perpetrated by Hamas or the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority. Authentic human rights activists would have condemned and protested against both of those totalitarian, Muslim supremacist, homophobic, misogynistic, corrupt, and violent regimes, which excel at denying to their citizens every freedom that genuine human rights advocates venerate, such as freedom of speech (including the right to publicly criticize members or decisions of the government, or Islam, or Mohammed), freedom of religion (including the right to convert from Islam to another religion), freedom to sell one’s land to anyone (including Jews), freedom to peacefully protest against the government, freedom of the press, the freedom to engage in acts of homosexuality, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and freedom from torture while under arrest. If these activists had really cared about “Palestinian” human rights, then they would have also demanded during their protests and riots against Israel that Hamas and the P.L.O. cease denying civil rights to their respective “Palestinian” populations. However, these activists were -- and have always been -- silent on providing such civil rights to Hamas-ruled “Palestinians” or to P.L.O.-ruled “Palestinians”, because these civil rights were not being abused or denied to the “Palestinians” by Israel, thereby proving that these activists were -- and have always been -- exclusively motivated by relentless hatred for the Jewish State, and not at all by genuine concern for “Palestinian” human rights. Alternatively stated, assuming arguendo that -- against international law and logic -- Israel can be credibly accused of occupying territories that are actually governed by other parties (i.e., Hamas-ruled Gaza and P.L.O.-ruled Areas A & B of the “West Bank”), that “Occupation” accusation against Israel provides no justification for these activists to condone the longtime denial by those governing parties (i.e., Hamas and the P.L.O.) of the civil rights to which their respective “Palestinian” populations are entitled.

Furthermore, that “Occupation” accusation against Israel also provides no justification for these activists to condone the longtime denial by Lebanon and Syria of the civil rights to which their respective “Palestinian” populations are entitled. Yet silent they were -- and have always been -- about the protection of “Palestinian” human rights -- unless the Jewish State could be accused of abusing or denying those rights.

Moreover, although Egypt has been Israel’s partner in allegedly converting Gaza into an “open-air prison”, none of these “human rights” activists ever condemned Egypt for its role in “imprisoning” Gazans by severely restricting Gazan access to Egypt via the “Rafah land crossing”. In fact, none of these “human rights” activists or their numerous allies embedded within the U.N. system condemned -- or even criticized -- Egypt when it stopped all humanitarian aid from entering Gaza via Egypt, in response to Israel’s capture of the Gazan side of the “Rafah land crossing” (which constitutes not only a portion of Gaza’s administrative border with Egypt, but also a portion of Israel’s international border with Egypt) on May 7, 2024, despite the fact that Egypt’s closure of the “Rafah land crossing” endangered Gaza’s food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. The silence of these “human rights” activists regarding Egypt’s stoppage of humanitarian aid to Gaza constituted yet additional evidence that these activists cared only about demonizing Israel, and nothing at all about preventing famine and pestilence in Gaza.

Hypocritically, the U.S. (at the direction of President Joseph Biden), which had repeatedly chastised Israel for not facilitating more humanitarian aid to Gaza (even though Israel is not required by the Laws of War to facilitate aid to an enemy population), also refused to criticize Egypt for blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza. This raises the question as to whether U.S. criticisms of Israel -- and only Israel -- regarding the entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza were based on bona fide fears of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza or rather on extraneous political considerations.

The second prong of this Hypocrisy implicated international reaction to Hezbollah’s initiation of war against Israel, which -- in tandem with the “human rights” demonstrations against Israel regarding Gaza -- also began on October 8, 2023, being the day after Gaza’s invasion of Israel proper and its concomitant perpetration of barbarities there. In order to prevent a full military mobilization by Israel against Gaza, Hezbollah (which constitutes the controlling faction in the Lebanese government, parliament, and military) began to attack Israel’s northern villages with automatic weapons fire, missiles, mortars, and suicide drones, to which Israel responded in kind, thereby resulting in many Israeli and Lebanese casualties, as well as the destruction of many homes (which, in the case of Lebanon, were hosting Hezbollah personnel, missiles, and munitions) and the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of residents from combat zones on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border. Those continuous Hezbollah attacks against Israel, including the firing of more than 9,000 missiles and suicide drones as of September 2024, resulted in widespread damage to and the consequent evacuation of 43 Jewish villages near the Lebanese border. In truth, these Hezbollah attacks constituted only the most recent installment of aggression against Israel emanating from Lebanese territory, commencing with Lebanon’s initiation (together with six other Arab States) of a genocidal war against Israel in May 1948, and continuing with Lebanon’s support for unrelenting attacks against Israel from its territory by resident terrorist militias (e.g., the Fatah faction the P.L.O., the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine faction of the P.L.O., and Hezbollah) since then.

However, despite the death, destruction, and displacement on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border resulting from this installment of Lebanese aggression, there was no demand by any of these “human rights” activists, the U.N. Security Council, member States, regional organizations, international “human rights” organizations, or the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church for a ceasefire (let alone an immediate ceasefire) in that parallel war until September 25, 2024 -- almost one year after Hezbollah initiated it.

On September 25, 2024, the United States (at the direction of President Joseph Biden) and France orchestrated a joint statement (which was supported by the European Union, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar) demanding that Israel and Lebanon immediately implement a 21-day ceasefire, during which the international community would attempt to find a diplomatic solution to that war, despite the fact that the sole Lebanese decisionmaker -- Hezbollah -- had previously evinced no interest in a ceasefire unless Israel ceased pursuing the defeat of Hamas in Gaza. Predictably, that joint statement, which omitted any mention of Hezbollah, not only failed to identify the aggressor in the Lebanon-Israel war, but it also implied a moral equivalency between the aggressor and the victim in that war. Moreover, that joint statement combined the demand for a ceasefire in the Lebanon-Israel war with a parallel demand for a ceasefire in the Gaza-Israel war. Tellingly, that joint statement’s coupling of a Lebanon-Israel ceasefire with a Gaza-Israel ceasefire was identical to Hezbollah’s position that its consent to the former would be conditional upon the implementation of the latter.

That joint statement, which was published on the website of the U.S. “White House”, declared, in full, as follows:

Joint Statement by the United States, Australia, Canada, European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Qatar

The situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023 is intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a broader regional escalation. This is in nobody’s interest, neither of the people of Israel nor of the people of Lebanon.  

It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement that enables civilians on both sides of the border to return to their homes in safety.

Diplomacy however cannot succeed amid an escalation of this conflict.  

Thus we call for an immediate 21 day ceasefire across the Lebanon-Israel border to provide space for diplomacy towards the conclusion of a diplomatic settlement consistent with UNSCR 1701 [of 2006, which terminated the Second Lebanon War, which was triggered by Hezbollah’s invasion of Israel in July 2006], and the implementation of UNSCR 2735 [of 2024] regarding a ceasefire in Gaza.

We call on all parties, including the Governments of Israel and Lebanon, to endorse the temporary ceasefire immediately consistent with UNSCR 1701 [of 2006] during this period, and to give a real chance to a diplomatic settlement.  

We are then prepared to fully support all diplomatic efforts to conclude an agreement between Lebanon and Israel within this period, building on efforts over the last months, that ends this crisis altogether.

One week later, on October 2, 2024 -- being the day after Israel invaded southern Lebanon and began to further degrade Hezbollah by killing additional Hezbollah commanders and by occupying Lebanese villages that were strongholds of that terrorist militia -- international pressure for a ceasefire in the Lebanon-Israel war escalated via an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council. The summary of that meeting was published as U.N. document SC/15841 dated October 2, 2024, with the title and subtitle of that summary being as follows:

‘Deadly Cycle of Tit-for-Tat Violence Must Stop,’ Demands Secretary-General, as Security Council Takes Up Situation in Middle East

Israel is Not Above the Law, Must Be Held Accountable, Says Delegate

The U.N. Secretary-General’s speech at that meeting was published as U.N. document SG/SM/22400 dated October 2, 2024, with the title of that speech being as follows:

Avoid ‘All Out War’ in Lebanon, Stop ‘Tit-for-Tat Violence’ Engulfing Middle East, Secretary-General Tells Security Council

So, what caused the international community, led by the U.S. and France, to suddenly demand a ceasefire in the Lebanon-Israel war after almost one year of ignoring that war? In the prior 30 days, the dynamics of that war -- which had previously created a tactical equilibrium between Israel and Lebanon -- quickly changed in Israel’s favor. This happened because, during that 30-day period, Israel was able to decimate the senior ranks of Hezbollah and to destroy a substantial portion of the latter’s missiles and missile launchers; and (due to its gradual success in degrading Hamas and allied terrorist militias in Gaza after almost one year of combat) Israel was thereafter able to shift a large portion of its army to the northern border in preparation for a ground invasion of Lebanon. To preempt that ground invasion against a weakened Hezbollah, the international community demanded a temporary ceasefire. However, that ceasefire -- if it had been accepted by Israel at that time -- would have accrued to Hezbollah’s advantage, as it would have allowed Hezbollah to reconstitute its personnel and munitions during that respite without interference from Israel; and that reconstitution, if successful, would have prevented Israel from achieving its twin objectives of (1) ending the existential threat posed by Hezbollah and (2) returning Israel’s evacuated northern population to its homes.

The reason for the international community’s unequal treatment of the Gaza-Israel war and the Lebanon-Israel war is that none of the foregoing parties ever cared about achieving or preserving peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, it cared only about hindering and thereby harming Israel. Consequently, the international community (including the U.S.) demanded an early ceasefire in the Gaza-Israel war, because an early ceasefire in that war would have benefitted Hamas by preventing Israel from eradicating it and the other Gazan terrorist organizations.

Conversely, the international community (including the U.S.) did not demand an early ceasefire in the parallel Lebanon-Israel war, because an early ceasefire in that war would have benefitted Israel (even if it would have also benefitted Lebanon) by permitting Israel to reallocate most of its Lebanese theater military resources to its Gazan theater war effort. However, as soon as the international community viewed a ceasefire as benefitting Hezbollah and harming Israel, the international community reversed course and demanded a ceasefire in that war. The foregoing disparate treatment once again revealed the extent to which the international community habitually acts to harm the existential interests of the Jewish State, so that it can claim an illusory diplomatic achievement.

Why illusory? That is because none of Israel’s genocidal adversaries have been willing to conclude a peace treaty with it, which would necessarily require the abandonment of their endless war against it. Consequently, even after the achievement of a ceasefire, Israel’s genocidal adversaries would remain ideologically committed to its destruction, meaning that any such ceasefire would be violated as soon as those adversaries were able to replenish their personnel and munitions.

Tellingly, many pro-Hamas apologists for the October 7, 2023 barbarities (and for innumerable prior “Palestinian” terrorist atrocities) against Israel claimed that these atrocities are merely an understandable reaction to the Nakba suffered by “Palestinians” during the period of 1948 - 1949. Yet, if the Nakba had been the true cause of terrorist atrocities against the Jewish State, then what explains the pre-Nakba terrorist atrocities against the Jewish population of western Mandatory Palestine during the period of 1920 - 1948? Obviously, while there is propaganda value in deflecting blame for “Palestinian” terrorist atrocities from the “Palestinians” to Israel by referencing the Nakba, both pre-Nakba and post-Nakba “Palestinian” terrorist atrocities have a common precipitating cause.

As was concluded by the British-impaneled Palestine Royal Commission (commonly known as the “Peel Commission”) during the “Great Arab Revolt” of 1936 - 1939 in western Mandatory Palestine, that common precipitating cause was, to wit:

Their [the “Palestinian” Arabs’] hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

(Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937, Chapter IV, paragraph 43).

Although the leadership of the “Palestinian” Arabs failed to prevent the establishment (or, more accurately, the reestablishment) of a sovereign Jewish National Home in 1948, that leadership has never ceased attempting to reverse that failure via all means available to it (e.g., terrorist attacks, war, propaganda, diplomatic pressure, boycotts, sanctions, lawfare, etc.).

Tellingly, the hypocritical international community that is so adept at condemning Israel’s lawful reacquisition, possession, and defense of its ancestral lands, is equally adept at condoning, rationalizing or ignoring the many real Occupations of recent memory, such as those:

by Britain: of the northern portion of Ireland (known as “Northern Ireland”), and of the southern tip of Spain (known as “Gibraltar”), and of the Falkland Islands (which are closest to Argentina and known as the “Malvinas Islands” to that nation) and of two areas of Cyprus (both used as British military bases, known as Akrotiri and Dhekelia, located on the southern coast of the island);

by Denmark: of Greenland (known as Kalaallit Nunaat to the Greenlandic Inuit people)

by the United States: of the southeastern tip of Cuba (known as “Guantanamo Bay”);

by Spain: of the cities of Cueta (known as Sebta to the Arab World) and Melilla (known as Maliliya to the Arab World) and the rock fortress of Peñón de Velez de la Gomera (known as Badis to the Arab World), all on the northeastern coast of Morocco, as well as several islands within the territorial waters of that Arab country, and of territory of Portugal on the Guadiana River (called Olivenza by Spain and Olivenca by Portugal);

by Portugal: formerly of Diu, Daman and Goa, being three regions on the western coast of India

by France: of territory on the northern coast of South America (known as “French Guiana”), of an archipelago in the South Pacific Ocean (known as “New Caledonia”), and of an archipelago in the Indian Ocean known as Mayotte (known as “Mahore” to the Arab World) within the territorial waters of Comoros;

by Spain and France: of Euskal Herria (the Basque homeland);

by Armenia: formerly of the southwestern portion of Azerbaijan (namely, the “Nagorno-Karabakh” enclave and additional surrounding territory, denominated as the “Republic of Artsakh” by Armenia)

by India: of the larger part of Kashmir;

by China: of Tibet and of the Uygur homeland in the province of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (known as East Turkestan to the Uygur people);

by China and Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) of the Wa (also known as the Lawa, Va, Hkawa, Kawa, or Kala) homeland;

by Russia: of four Japanese islands at the southern tip of the Kuril archipelago (known as the “Northern Territories” to Japan), and of Chechnya, and of the Crimean peninsula and the eastern portion of Ukraine (self-proclaimed as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s Republic”), and of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia provinces of Georgia, and of the Transnistria (also known as Trans-Dniester or Transdniestria) province of Moldova, and formerly of Afghanistan, and formerly of the 14 nations which (together with Russia) comprised the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (commonly known as the Soviet Union)

by Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkiye: of Kurdistan;

by Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan: of Baluchistan (also known as Balochistan);

by Algeria: of (the remnant Berber homeland of) Kabylia;

by Turkiye: of the northeastern portion of Cyprus (denominated as “The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” by Turkiye) and of the Iskenderun region (denominated as the Province of Hatay by Turkiye) which was originally part of the territory included in the League of Nations Mandate for Syria, and is claimed by Syria (known as the Alexandretta region to the Arab World) and of portions of Syrian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan;

by Syria: formerly of Lebanon;

by Iran: of the oil-rich region of Khuzestan (known as the region of “al-Ahwaz” to the Arab World) which has been populated almost exclusively by Arabs for the past 600 years, and of the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Moussa located within the territorial waters of United Arab Emirates, and of the southern portion of Azerbaijan;

by Morocco: of Western Sahara;

by Ethiopia: formerly of Somalia;

by the United Nations itself: of the Kosovo province of Serbia; and

by nations (such as Britain, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, France, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Yemen): of islands that lie well beyond their own territorial waters.

The above-enumerated Occupations represent only a fraction of the more than 200 territorial disputes that exist in the World, virtually none of which elicit any attention from the International Committee of the Red Cross or the United Nations system. In fact, while the international community has always employed the pejorative label “Occupation” to describe Israel’s lawful reacquisition of its ancestral lands, it has never employed that label to describe any of the above-enumerated Occupations. Moreover, none of the above-enumerated Occupations has ever been declared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (which narcissistically deems itself to be the official interpreter of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949) or by any component of the U.N. system to be in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which, inter alia, prohibits an Occupying Power from transferring portions of the indigenous population from, or transferring portions of its own population to, the occupied territory). Specifically, although Syria (during its former Occupation of Lebanon), Morocco (during its current Occupation of Western Sahara), China (during its current Occupation of Tibet), Russia (during its current Occupation of the Crimean peninsula and other portions of Ukraine) and Turkiye (during its current Occupations of northeastern Cyprus and portions of northern Syria and northern Iraq) have transferred hundreds of thousands of their population to and/or hundreds of thousands of the indigenous population from occupied territories in order to effect demographic changes therein, neither the ICRC nor any component of the U.N. system has ever declared any of those nations to be in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Only Israel’s lawful reacquisition of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza has ever been declared by the ICRC and the U.N. system to be in violation thereof.

Tellingly, while the entire World insists that the “Palestinians” (despite not being a distinct ethnicity) are entitled to create a 22^nd Arab State, it simultaneously insists that neither the Kurds, nor the Baluchis, nor the Basques (despite being distinct ethnicities) are entitled to create even one State of their own. The reason is that there is widespread international support for endangering the continued existence of the Jewish State -- precisely because it is the Jewish State -- by creating a hostile “State of Palestine” in portions of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. However, there is no international support for diminishing other States by creating therefrom new ethnic States, even though those new ethnic States will not endanger the continued existence of the States from which they will be created.

This inversion of Morality was lamented by Solomon, third monarch of biblical Israel, who presciently observed:

“There is a Futility that takes place on the Earth -- there are righteous ones who are treated as [if they had performed] the actions of the evil ones; and there are evil ones who are treated as [if they had performed] the actions of the righteous ones -- I declared that, also, this is a Futility.”

(Ecclesiastes 8:14). 

His father, David, second monarch of biblical Israel, had earlier warned the World:

“The evil ones will surge forward on every side when Baseness is exalted among the Sons of Man.”

(Psalms 12:9).

And the Prophet Isaiah, in a later generation, declared:

“Woe unto those who speak of Evil as [if it were] Good, and of Good as [if it were] Evil; who make Darkness into [the semblance of] Light, and Light into [the semblance of] Darkness; who make Bitter into [the perception of] Sweet, and Sweet into [the perception of] Bitter.”

(Isaiah 5:20)

The depths of depravity to which the U.N. has descended since its founding has been further demonstrated by its leadership assignments in the first decades of the 21st Century. For example, the U.N. offered to:

1. Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya, a major abuser of human rights, chairmanship of its Human Rights Commission (subsequently reinvented in 2006 as the equally malevolent Human Rights Council);

2. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a major developer of banned biological and chemical weapons (the latter of which were used in March 1988 to annihilate more than 5,000 Kurds residing in Halabja, Iraq), chairmanship of its Disarmament Commission;

3. Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, a sponsor of and host to terrorist groups (as well as Nazi war criminals such as Alois Brunner who was responsible for the genocide of approximately 128,500 Jews from Austria, Greece, France and Czechoslovakia during the Holocaust) and a mass-murderer of its own citizens, presidency of its Security Council; and

4. Ali Kamanei’s Iran, a major violator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, vice chairmanship of its Disarmament Commission.

Tellingly, despite acts of genocide, war crimes, and other serious human rights abuses being perpetuated all over the World, Israel is virtually the only country in the World which has ever been censured by the U.N. Human Rights Council; and Israel is also the only country in the World whose activities have been designated for special scrutiny as a permanent agenda item of the UNHRC -- namely, Agenda Item 7 (entitled “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories”) of each and every session of the UNHRC -- in addition to being subjected to routine scrutiny per the UNHRC’s quadrennial “Universal Periodic Review” of the status of human rights in each U.N. member State (which quadrennial review, in practice, is utilized by totalitarian member States to sanitize their routine repression of civil rights, political dissent, religious observance and free expression).

For example, unsurprisingly, during the quadrennial review of Iran’s abominable human rights record in November 2019, 85% of the member States of the UNHRC (i.e., 95 member States out of 111 member States), issued written statements praising Iran. It is noteworthy that, while the behavior of U.N. member State Israel is examined at each and every session of the UNHRC (under Agenda Item 7), the other 192 member States of the U.N. are only occasionally examined at sessions of the UNHRC (under Agenda Item 4 -- entitled “Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention”).

Furthermore, while the UNHRC has appointed dozens of human rights rapporteurs, some of which are assigned to examine and report upon the human rights situations in specific countries on a temporary basis, Israel is the only State for which the UNHRC has appointed a human rights rapporteur on a permanent basis. However, unlike the rapporteurs temporarily assigned to other countries, who are tasked with reviewing the overall human rights situation in those countries, the rapporteur permanently assigned to Israel is tasked with reviewing only one side of the human rights situation there, namely, those human rights abuses allegedly perpetrated by Israel against the “Palestinians”, while those human rights abuses perpetrated by “Palestinian” terrorist organizations (e.g., the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine”, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) against Israeli Jews (e.g., genocidal incitement and acts of terrorism) or even against their fellow Arabs remains outside the purview of that rapporteur’s assignment.

Moreover, Israel is also the only State for which the UNHRC has created a permanent commission of inquiry in order to investigate the Jewish State’s alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, not only with respect to the Arabs of the “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, but also with respect to the Arab citizens of Israel proper.

None of this is actually surprising when one considers that the membership of the UNHRC has traditionally included such human rights “luminaries” as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Zimbabwe, Angola, Congo, Djibouti, Mauritania, Malaysia, Qatar, and Cuba -- the vast majority of whom are openly antagonistic to Israel. In fact, member States of the “Organisation of Islamic Cooperation” (formerly known as the “Organisation of the Islamic Conference”), a virulently anti-Israel transnational organization, have traditionally comprised from 30% to 38% of the membership of the UNHRC, and have always voted as a bloc within that U.N. agency to create and implement policies that are intended to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State. Since the creation of the UNHRC, theses Muslim States, together with other member States that despise the Jewish State and other member States which are indifferent to the propaganda war against the Jewish State, have possessed a guaranteed majority in this U.N. specialized agency.

In light of the UNHRC’s laser-focused campaign of demonization, delegitimization and double standards against the Jewish State, it is relevant to point out the extent to which the UNHRC has eviscerated the lofty mandate set forth in its founding document, namely, U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/60/251 of April 3, 2006, which declares, in part:

…

Recognizing also the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and the elimination of double standards and politicization,

…

2. Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;

…

4. Decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development;

…

Unfortunately, the foregoing conduct of the UNHRC constitutes only one example of the War of Demonization and Delegitimization being waged against Israel by virtually all components of the U.N. system.

For example, the 66^th World Health Assembly of the U.N.-affiliated World Health Organization (whose acronym is “WHO”), representing the member States of WHO, held in May 2013, represents another example of the obsessive international focus on Israel at the expense of actual threats to world-wide public health. The authorizing resolution (Document no. WHA66.5) for that session’s Agenda Item number 20 (entitled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan”) excoriated Israel for allegedly causing and perpetuating a “health crisis” in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Resolution, Section 2, Paragraph 1) despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority administers the healthcare system for virtually all Arabs residing in Judea & Samaria, while Hamas administers the healthcare system for all Arabs residing in Gaza. That resolution also ignored the fact that the non-Jewish residents of the Golan Heights (i.e., the Druze Arabs) receive healthcare that is identical to that received by the Jewish residents thereof. Pursuant to that resolution, the World Health Assembly accepted four separate reports, including one from Syria, condemning Israel. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the Assembly did not permit any agenda item to consider the enormous health implications of Syria’s civil war that, as of May 2013, had already resulted in approximately 90,000 civilian deaths, more than 4 million refugees (including approximately 600,000 children), mass starvation and a collapse of that country’s healthcare system.

In an encore performance, the 68^th World Health Assembly of WHO, held in May 2015, issued an authorizing resolution (Document no. A68/B/CONF./2) for that session’s Agenda Item number 20 (again entitled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan”), which falsely accused Israel of a long list of alleged atrocities (e.g., “barriers to health access”, “damage to and destruction of medical infrastructure and facilities” and “impeded access to water and sanitation”) impacting the health of the “Palestinian” residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza and also the Druze Arab residents of the Golan Heights. Israel was the only State singled out for condemnation by the World Health Assembly at its 2015 session.

In addition to being the target of a condemnatory World Health Assembly resolution almost every year, Israel is also the subject of a WHO evaluation report every year. Unsurprisingly, Israel is the only State to be evaluated by WHO every year; and, also unsurprisingly, that evaluation is invariably condemnatory. Such behavior has rendered WHO yet another component organization of the U.N. system that has permitted its core mission to be subverted by and subordinated to the international effort to demonize, delegitimize, and impose double standards upon the Jewish State.

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (which commission is a unit of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, and which commission then included among its member States such human rights “luminaries” as Bangladesh, China, Congo, Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and Zimbabwe), which held its 59^th session from March 9, 2015 to March 20, 2015, represents a another example of the international drive to demonize and delegitimize Israel at the expense of its core mission, which is described on its website as “… the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women”. That session blamed one -- and only one -- country in the World for causing the depredations suffered by women during 2014, namely Israel, while simultaneously managing to praise the fictional “State of Palestine” for its alleged gender equality efforts. Despite abuses against women throughout the Islamic World and elsewhere on the planet in 2014, the only U.N.-authorized gender discrimination study undertaken for that year focused exclusively upon discrimination suffered by “Palestinian” women (per Document no. E/CN.6/2015/5, entitled “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian women. Report of the Secretary-General”). The Commission’s report predictably concluded that Israel -- and only Israel -- was directly or indirectly responsible for such discrimination (see Document, Section II, Paragraphs 4 - 16, and Section IV, Paragraphs 60 - 63). Conversely, the Commission’s report concluded that the “State of Palestine” had made “noteworthy” and “laudable” discrimination remediation efforts (Document, Section II, Paragraph 20, and Section IV, Paragraph 64).

The machinations of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (whose acronym is “UNESCO”) also illustrate the extent to which ostensibly neutral organizations within the U.N. system have been hijacked and perverted by enemies of Israel.

UNESCO’s mission statement (as published on its website) states, in part:

UNESCO works to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values. It is through this dialogue that the World can achieve global visions of sustainable development encompassing observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty, all of which are at the heart of UNESCO’s mission and activities. …

Notwithstanding that lofty self-description, in the context of Israel, UNESCO has abandoned that core mission in order to participate in the propaganda war against the Jewish State. On April 15, 2016, the Executive Board of UNESCO, pursuant to agenda item 19 (entitled “Occupied Palestine”) of its 199^th session, approved yet another lopsided anti-Israel resolution (published as UNESCO’s Progamme And External Relations Commission’s English-language document no. 199 EX/PX/DR.19.1 Rev., dated April 11, 2016).

In a transparent attempt to expunge the more-than-3,000-year-old specific historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem, via that Resolution, UNESCO sought to erase the longstanding English-language name “Temple Mount” (whose very name evokes the aforesaid connection) from its English-language lexicon in favor of the (mostly) Arabic-language designation “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif” (Resolution, paragraphs 7 - 16 & 18), so that future generations of English speakers would dismiss the name “Temple Mount” (with its Jewish associations) as anachronistic, and would recognize only the names “al-Aqsa Mosque” and “al-Haram al-Sharif” (with their Islamic associations).

Furthermore, by combining the separate names “al-Aksa Mosque” and “al-Haram al-Sharif” (the latter of which is the Arabic-language name for the Temple Mount) into the newly-created compound name “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif”, UNESCO -- at the request of Jordan and the P.L.O., with the support of a voting majority of UNESCO member States -- has thereby conflated the relatively small al-Aksa mosque on the Temple Mount with the entire 36-acre public plaza (comprising almost 146,000 square meters and almost 1.6 million square feet) that is the Temple Mount, the objective being for the U.N. system to treat the entire Temple Mount as if it were a mosque. For, if the entire Temple Mount is deemed to be a mosque, then Israel, which presently prohibits Jews (and other non-Muslims) from entering any of the mosques on the Temple Mount, will be placed under tremendous international pressure to prohibit Jews (and other non-Muslims) from visiting any part of the Temple Mount.

Stated more succinctly, the U.N. system’s long-term purpose in coining and utilizing the compound designation “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif” (or its functional equivalent: “al-Aksa Mosque Compound”) instead of “Temple Mount” in its English-language documents is to establish a justified pretext for demanding that Jews be banned from visiting their holiest site in the World.

In light of the foregoing, it is not surprising that, in the same Resolution, UNESCO condemned Israel for permitting Jews to visit, and for instructing its army to maintain security on, the Temple Mount, to wit: “Firmly deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif by the Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces, and urges Israel, the Occupying Power, to take necessary measures to prevent provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif” (Resolution, paragraph 9). That Resolution also condemned Israel for allegedly “… planting Jewish fake graves …” in Muslim cemeteries (Resolution, paragraph 14); condemned Israel for “… the instalment of an umbrella …” at the entrance to one of the Temple Mount’s gates (Resolution, paragraph 20); condemned Israel for responding to Gazan rocket and mortar fire, but not Hamas for initiating those attacks against Israel, or for embedding its personnel within its civilian population, or for storing its rockets and other munitions near, inside, and (via a vast tunnel network) underneath Gazan schools, mosques, hospitals, apartment buildings, and U.N. facilities, thereby utilizing its population as human shields, to wit: “Deplores the military confrontations in and around the Gaza Strip and the civilian casualties caused, including the killing and injury of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, as well as the continuous negative impact in the fields of competence of UNESCO, the attacks on schools and other educational and cultural facilities, including breaches of inviolability of UNRWA schools” (Resolution, paragraph 31); and condemned Israel, but not Egypt, for refusing to maintain open borders with hostile Gaza, to wit: “Strongly deplores the continuous Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, which harmfully affects the free and sustained movement of personnel and humanitarian relief items as well as the intolerable number of casualties among Palestinian children, the attacks on schools and other educational and cultural facilities and the denial of access to education, and requests Israel, the occupying Power, to immediately ease this blockade” (Resolution, paragraph 32).

It is noteworthy that, although Israel had removed all Jews (both civilians and soldiers) from Gaza more than 10 years earlier, the last-cited paragraph of that Resolution, in an attempt (that has been habitually emulated and reiterated by all components of the U.N. system) to render Israel legally responsible for the well-being of Hamas-ruled Gaza, fancifully referred to Israel as “the occupying Power” with respect thereto.

That Resolution was sponsored by a coalition of Muslim countries, including -- unsurprisingly -- Israel’s ostensible “peace partners” Egypt and Jordan. Of the 58 member States comprising the Executive Board of UNESCO, only 6 member States voted against the Resolution.

Unfortunately, Antisemitic resolutions from UNESCO have become normative, as from 2009 to 2018, more than 97% of all condemnatory resolutions issued by UNESCO targeted the Jewish State -- despite the fact that Israel has -- at all times -- meticulously preserved all of the antiquities that belonged to the prior cultures of the Land and has -- at all times -- vigorously protected all holy sites of the Land.

Taking its cue from UNESCO, the U.N. General Assembly subsequently approved, by a huge majority, the condemnatory English-language Resolution no. A/RES/71/25 on November 30, 2016 (published as document no. A/71/L.22 dated November 18, 2016), entitled “Jerusalem”, which exclusively employed “Haram al-Sharif” instead of “Temple Mount” (see Resolution, preambular paragraph 9 and operative paragraph 4). This shameful vote, which officially erased “Temple Mount” from the United Nations’ English-language lexicon, comprised 149 member States voting “in favour”, 7 member States voting “against”, 8 member States voting “abstain”, and 29 member States being “absent”. Israel’s two “peace partners”, Egypt and Jordan, not only voted for this Resolution, but they were also among its many co-sponsors. And the vote took place at a time when the U.N. was doing nothing to stop the many wars then raging and the many war crimes then being perpetrated throughout World, including the conflict in Syria, which (by that time) had resulted in more than 400,000 deaths and more than ten million refugees.

However, the coup de grâce was delivered shortly thereafter by the U.N. Security Council, which issued its Resolution no. 2334 of December 23, 2016 (entitled “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”), falsely declaring that Jewish habitation anywhere in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (i.e., including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which encompasses the Western Wall of the Temple Mount) is illegal, to wit: “Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law...” (Resolution, operative paragraph 1); and implicitly demanding that Israel prevent Jews from relocating to existing Jewish communities therein, prevent Jews from erecting any new structures within those existing Jewish communities, and even prevent Jews from enlarging any existing structures within those existing Jewish communities, to wit: “Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem ...” (Resolution, operative paragraph 2). By denying the historical and religious connections between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, the Resolution repudiated the rights granted to the Jewish people by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Moreover, by repeatedly identifying Judea & Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem as “Palestinian territory” the Resolution also repudiated U.N. Security Resolution no. 242 of 1967, which latter Resolution did not seek to establish or dictate Israel’s international borders (but instead recognized that Israel was entitled to “secure and recognized boundaries” per operative paragraph 1(ii) thereof), and which Resolution did not label any lands then in Israel’s possession as being “Palestinian territory”. Unsurprisingly, U.N.S.C. Resolution no. 2334 was sponsored by Israel’s “peace partner” Egypt, and was approved by the 15-member Security Council via a lopsided vote of 14 “in favour” and 1 “abstain”. The abstention was by the United States (at the direction of President Barack Obama), which abstention operated, in effect, as a controlling vote “in favour” of the Resolution due to the unused veto power held by the United States in its capacity as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. The refusal of the United States to veto this Resolution is what allowed the Resolution to become yet another brick in the Wall of Antisemitism (masquerading as anti-colonialism) that has been under construction at the United Nations ever since Israel’s admission thereto. Hypocritically, even though the U.S. officially abstained on the Resolution, it actively participated in crafting its language. Tellingly, immediately after the Resolution was approved, the members of each Security Council delegation (including that of the United States) applauded in unison, thereby overtly manifesting the United Nations’ longstanding disdain for the continued existence of the Jewish State and the latter’s entitlements under international law as well as under the U.N. system itself.

This last conclusion is not an exaggeration, as from the date of its admittance to the United Nations in May 1949 -- long before its reacquisition of the remainder of its ancient homeland in 1967 -- Israel has been the only member State of the U.N. to ever be excluded from its U.N. regional group, which, in Israel’s case, is the Asia-Pacific Group (formerly known as the Asian Group). This is noteworthy, because the U.N.’s geographical grouping system (comprising five regional groups, to wit: the African Group; the Asia-Pacific Group; the Eastern European Group; the Latin American and Caribbean Group; and the Western European and Others Group) exists in order to allocate among the U.N.’s member States, by regional formula, all U.N. specialized agency memberships (which agencies are the official mechanism by which U.N. policies on every subject are created and implemented), with the result that Israel is the only member State of the U.N. which has been barred during its long membership in that preeminent international organization from serving as a member of the U.N. Security Council (or any of its subsidiary organs, such as its Counter-Terrorism Committee) as well as all other specialized agencies of the U.N. (e.g., U.N. Human Rights Council; and U.N. International Court of Justice). In effect, except for its participation in activities of the General Assembly and its subsidiary committees (for which a regional group membership is not a prerequisite), Israel has been routinely treated as a non-member observer State of the U.N. rather than as a member State thereof. Unsurprisingly, neither the U.N. Secretariat, nor the U.N. Security Council, nor the U.N. General Assembly have ever sought to remedy this blatant attack upon the United Nations’ integrity and raison d’être. Distressingly, none of the other U.N. regional groups offered to admit Israel into its group for the next half century. Clearly, such international hostility and ostracism long predate Israel’s re-acquisition of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza in 1967.

Ironically, the U.N.’s geographical grouping system was neither created nor authorized nor even envisaged by the U.N. Charter. While this allocation system exists only by virtue of custom, it has been used to eviscerate Israel’s fundamental rights under the U.N. Charter, as enshrined in Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of Chapter I thereof (entitled “Purposes And Principles”), which declares:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Consequently, by its longstanding acceptance of the refusal of the Asia-Pacific Group (and its predecessor, the Asian Group) to recognize Israel as a member State thereof, the U.N. continues to severely undermine its purported integrity as well as its raison d’être.

This situation was somewhat ameliorated in 2000 when Israel was accepted as a temporary member State (and in 2004 when Israel was accepted as a permanent member State) of the Western European And Others Group (commonly known as “WEOG”) under draconian admittance conditions which -- by combining geographical restrictions with agency membership restrictions -- have, in practice, severely limited Israel’s ability to apply for U.N. agency memberships and to participate in substantive U.N. policy discussions and decision-making. Specifically, since 2000, Israel (as a member of WEOG) has been allowed to participate in some of the U.N. activities that take place at the U.N.’s main headquarters in New York City, while (via WEOG fiat) it has remained barred from participating in any U.N. activities that take place at any of the U.N.’s regional headquarters (i.e., those located in Geneva, Vienna, Rome and Nairobi) where virtually all substantive U.N. policy discussions and decision-making activities actually occur. For example, Israel not only continues to be barred from seeking membership in, inter alia, the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is based at the U.N.’s Geneva headquarters, but Israel is also barred from participating in any WEOG membership consultations concerning that Geneva-based U.N. agency. Moreover, Israel has been barred (by WEOG fiat) from applying for membership even in certain U.N. agencies which are based at the U.N.’s New York headquarters for a number of years. For example, although the U.N. Security Council is based at the U.N.’s New York headquarters, Israel was barred from competing for one of the two WEOG-reserved non-permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council until the U.N.’s 2019-2020 session (representing a seven-decade ban since the Jewish State’s admission to the U.N. and a two-decade ban since the Jewish State’s admission to WEOG). However, although, in 2005, Israel gave fellow WEOG members a 14-year advance notice of its future intention to compete for one of the two WEOG-reserved U.N. Security Council seats in 2019, it faced: (a) immediate competition from rival WEOG candidates Belgium and Germany (both of whom have been previously elected to WEOG-reserved Security Council seats, but neither of which agreed to withdraw their candidacies in favor of Israel’s), and (b) in light of the widespread and intense hostility to the Jewish State throughout the U.N. system, a near-impossible requirement that its election be approved by at least 128 U.N. member States. As a result of these formidable obstacles, in May 2018, Israel withdrew its maiden candidacy for membership in the New York-based U.N. Security Council. It is noteworthy that Israel is the only member of WEOG to have ever been subjected to geographical restrictions or agency membership restrictions. These restrictions have rendered Israel’s belated participation in the U.N.’s specialized agency system largely symbolic, with the result that the Jewish State continues, in practice, to be barred from membership in the vast majority (including the most important) of the U.N.’s specialized agencies. Ironically, but unsurprisingly, the Palestine Liberation Organization, in its capacity as the non-member observer "State of Palestine", is treated more like a U.N. member State than is Israel.

The United Nations’ institutional bias against Israel has been further exemplified by the U.N.’s International Court of Justice in its nonbinding Advisory Opinion, identified as General List no. 131, entitled “LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY” dated July 9, 2004.

Despite its lofty title, the International Court of Justice -- like all U.N. agencies -- is a de facto political entity composed of U.N. member State-nominated candidates who are formulaically drawn from the five regional groups which comprise the United Nations for purposes of agency membership allocation. Consequently, the judges of the Court (especially those nominated by totalitarian States) are generally subservient to the legal and political interests of their respective States.

Moreover, such judicial nominations must be approved by a majority vote of the U.N. General Assembly and by a majority vote of the U.N. Security Council -- two very politicized organs.

One might logically assume that such judicial nominees would be judges in their nominating States with an expertise in international law. However, that assumption would be mistaken. Instead, such judicial nominees are not required to be judges in their nominating States. And even if such judicial nominees are judges in their nominating States, they are not required to have any expertise in international law. Instead, in addition to possessing a “high moral character” (however such “high moral character” may be determined by a nominating State and the U.N.), such nominees must only:

(1) “possess the qualifications required … for appointment to the highest judicial offices” (however such “qualifications” may be determined by a nominating State and the U.N.); or (rather than “and”)

(2) have a “recognized competence in international law” (however such “recognized competence” may be determined by a nominating State and the U.N.).

As stated in the “Members of the Court” section of the website of the International Court of Justice:

Judges must be elected from among persons of high moral character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law.

The saga of the U.N. Court’s anti-Israel Advisory Opinion actually began more than 7 years earlier -- on April 24, 1997. On that date the U.N. General Assembly convened its 1^st “Tenth Emergency Special Session”, entitled “Occupied East Jerusalem and Palestinian Territory” in order to reiterate its longstanding condemnation of Israel for the “Occupation”. Its 2^nd “Tenth Emergency Special Session”, held on the same date, resulted in the issuance of condemnatory United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/2, dated May 5, 1997, entitled “Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. The “Tenth Emergency Special Session” was subsequently reconvened 11 more times over the next 6 years in order to serially condemn Israel for the “Occupation” (with each resulting Resolution also being entitled “Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”) until December 8, 2003, when the General Assembly held its 14^th “Tenth Emergency Special Session” against Israel, resulting in condemnatory United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/14, dated the same date, also entitled “Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, which directed the International Court of Justice (which is also known as the “World Court”) to issue an Advisory Opinion concerning Israel’s construction of a passive security barrier in portions of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem. The innovative thought underlying this directive was that the issuance of a condemnatory Advisory Opinion by the U.N.’s International Court of Justice, although nonbinding, would nonetheless embody more gravitas in the propaganda war against Israel than equally nonbinding, but -- by now -- routine, condemnatory Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

The General Assembly was able to invoke its “Emergency Special Session” procedure against Israel pursuant to prior United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/377 (V), dated November 3, 1950, entitled “Uniting for Peace”, by which the General Assembly first conjured a right for itself (which does not exist in the U.N. Charter) to empower U.N. member States to take collective action, including the use of military force, to maintain “international peace and security” with respect to any international dispute as to which the Security Council had become, in the opinion of the General Assembly, deadlocked. It is noteworthy that 50% of all “Emergency Special Sessions” convened from 1956 to the present time have been utilized to condemn only one State, namely, Israel; and that percentage rises to 78% when the multisession nature of the “Tenth Emergency Special Session” is taken into account. It also noteworthy that between April 24, 1997 (when the “Tenth Emergency Special Session” was first convened) and the present time, Israel is the only State against which the U.N. has utilized its “Emergency Special Session” procedure.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/14 of December 8, 2003, states, in full, as follows:

ES-10/14. Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003,

Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Aware of the established principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Aware also that developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples is among the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which partitioned mandated Palestine into two States, one Arab and one Jewish,

Recalling also the resolutions of the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly,

Recalling further relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994, 1073 (1996) of 28 September 1996, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 and 1515 (2003) of 19 November 2003,

Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907,

Welcoming the convening of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, at Geneva on 15 July 1999,

Expressing its support for the declaration adopted by the reconvened Conference of High Contracting Parties at Geneva on 5 December 2001,

Recalling in particular relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development as well as those demanding the complete cessation of settlement activities,

Recalling relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are null and void,

Noting the agreements reached between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the context of the Middle East peace process,

Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory, and underlining the unanimous opposition by the international community to the construction of that wall,

Gravely concerned also at the even more devastating impact of the projected parts of the wall on the Palestinian civilian population and on the prospects for solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and establishing peace in the region,

Welcoming the report of 8 September 2003 of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, in particular the section regarding the wall,

Affirming the necessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions,

Having received with appreciation the report of the Secretary-General, submitted in accordance with resolution ES-10/13,

Bearing in mind that the passage of time further compounds the difficulties on the ground, as Israel, the occupying Power, continues to refuse to comply with international law vis-à-vis its construction of the above-mentioned wall, with all its detrimental implications and consequences,

Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question:

What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

Based upon the numerous falsehoods embedded in the foregoing authorizing Resolution (including the false implication in the foregoing question that it posed to the Court that anti-Israel U.N. Security Council resolutions and U.N. General Assembly resolutions constitute sources of international law rather than mere political recommendations of the international community), it is unsurprising that the members of the International Court of Justice, with the notable exception of the judge representing the United States, adopted all of those same falsehoods as the foundation for its Advisory Opinion. Indisputably, via its authorizing Resolution, the General Assembly dictated to its proprietary judicial agency exactly how it expected the Court to politically rule on the matter. Accordingly, the nearly-unanimous Court -- employing tendentious terms, such as the “Palestinian people” and the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” -- declared, inter alia, as follows:

(a) There is no longer any dispute over the existence of an ethnicity known as the “Palestinian people” (see Paragraph 118 of the Advisory Opinion).

(b) Based upon the general premise that League of Nations mandates were intended to fulfill the inherent right of self-determination of the “inhabitants of the territory”, the Mandate for Palestine was also intended to serve this expansive purpose (see Paragraph 70 of the Advisory Opinion), thereby falsely implying that one of the purposes of the Mandate was to create a State for the “Palestinian people” in western Mandatory Palestine -- without first considering whether:

(1) an alleged people (i.e., the “Palestinians”), who seek self-determination as part of a plan to destroy and replace an existing State (i.e., Israel), are nonetheless entitled to such self-determination under international law; and

(2) Britain’s earlier creation of Transjordan (now known as Jordan) in eastern Mandatory Palestine, on September 16, 1922, pursuant to the implicit authority of Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, had already served the purpose of providing self-determination for the “Palestinian” Arab population of Mandatory Palestine.

(c) Although Israel’s former 1949 armistice demarcation line with Jordan was no more than a military separation-of-forces line between the parties (see Paragraph 72 of the Advisory Opinion), Israel’s capture of lands from Jordan on the other side of that line in 1967, labeled by the Court as the “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, rendered Israel merely the “occupying Power” thereof (see Paragraph 78 of the Advisory Opinion) rather than the Sovereign thereof, implicitly due, as elsewhere declared by the Court, to the preexisting national rights granted to the “Palestinian people” by the Mandate for Palestine with respect to the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” -- despite the fact the lands denominated by the Court as the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” did not exist as a delineated territory during the era of the Mandate for Palestine.

(d) Despite the contrary language of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 thereof, which the Court obfuscated, the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to Israel’s capture from Jordan of the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” in 1967 -- whether or not, at the time of their capture, those lands belonged to Jordan (see Paragraphs 90 - 101 of the Advisory Opinion); and, moreover, that there was “… no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories” (Paragraph 101 of the Advisory Opinion). Furthermore, despite the contrary language of Paragraph 6 of Article 49 thereof, which the Court also obfuscated, the Convention barred the subsequent establishment of Jewish communities in these captured areas -- whether or not such communities were the product of any governmental deportation or transfer of Jews thereto (see Paragraph 120 of the Advisory Opinion).

(e) Israel’s erection of the “Wall” in portions of the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” was not a security measure necessary for the protection of Israel’s civilian population against terror attacks perpetrated by “Palestinian” Arabs (see Paragraphs 134 - 137, 140 & 142 of the Advisory Opinion).

(f) Israel was not entitled under the authority of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter to defend itself against “Palestinian” terrorists by building a passive “Wall” in portions of the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (or, implicitly, by utilizing more aggressive measures of self-defense therein), because that Article authorizes a member State to employ defensive measures only against aggression perpetrated by another State, and not against aggression committed by a non-State perpetrator such as the “Palestinian” Arabs. Moreover, Israel was also not entitled under the authority of Article 51 to defend itself against attacks emanating from the “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, because that Article authorizes a member State to employ defensive measures only against aggression emanating from territory that is outside the control of that member State, and because contrarily “Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (Paragraph 139 thereof) -- despite the salient fact (conveniently ignored by the Court) that virtually all terrorism emanating from the “West Bank” originated from Areas A & B thereof, which are governed and thereby controlled, not by Israel, but by the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority (see Paragraphs 138 - 139 of the Advisory Opinion).

(g) Consequently, Israel was required to promptly remove the “Wall” and to thereafter pay reparations and make restitution to the “Palestinians” harmed by the “Wall” (see Paragraphs 151 - 153 of the Advisory Opinion).

The Court’s interpretation of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter is so twisted that it is reproduced below, to wit:

138. The Court has thus concluded that the construction of the wall constitutes action not in conformity with various international legal obligations incumbent upon Israel. However, Annex 1 to the report of the Secretary-General states that, according to Israel: "the construction of the Barrier is consistent with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, its inherent right to self-defence and Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001)". More specifically, Israel's Permanent Representative to the United Nations asserted in the General Assembly on 20 October 2003 that "the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter"; the Security Council resolutions referred to, he continued, "have clearly recognized the right of States to use force in self-defence against terrorist attacks", and therefore surely recognize the right to use non-forcible measures to that end (AIES-10lPV.21, p. 6).

139. Under the terms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (200l), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence. Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

Pursuant to the Court’s bizarre interpretation of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, that Article does not authorize Israel to defend itself against attacks by terrorist organizations because (a) those attacks are not being perpetrated by another State and/or (b) those attacks originate from territory that (according to the Court) is within Israel’s control. Alternatively stated, pursuant to the Court’s bizarre interpretation of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, that Article does not authorize Israel to defend itself against attacks by terrorist organizations whether those attack originate from within Israel (because Israel controls such territory) or from outside Israel (because those attackers are non-State actors) -- meaning that Israel has no right of self-defense against attacks by terrorist organizations.

Despite the Court’s interpretation of Article 51, nowhere in that Article does it restrict its application to an armed attack against a member State by another State. Furthermore, nowhere in that Article does it restrict its application to an armed attack against a member State which originates from territory that is outside the control of that member State. On the contrary, by its broad language, the Article clearly applies to an armed attack against a member State by one or more States, by one or more non-State actors (i.e., terrorist organizations), or by any combination of aggressors, without regard to whether that attack originates from territory that is within the control or outside the control of that member State.

Moreover, Article 51 does not claim to grant to sovereign States any right of self-defense. Rather, Article 51 acknowledges that a sovereign State’s right of self-defense is “inherent”, meaning that such right is an inalienable feature of a State’s existence. As a State’s right of self-defense does not depend on the existence of Article 51, that Article’s removal from the U.N. Charter or alleged inapplicability to a particular situation would not -- and could not -- cancel that “inherent right”.

Consequently, the Court’s interpretation of Article 51 is both logically and legally flawed.

It is ironic that, in the Court’s zeal to judicially strip Israel of its Article 51 right to defend itself against terrorist attacks (even by employment in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem of the most passive of obstacles thereto), the Court has also deprived all other member States of a crucial U.N.-recognized mechanism for defending themselves against atrocities perpetrated by non-State actors. Even if the Court’s ruling on this issue were to be mandatory rather than advisory, it is unlikely that any member State of the U.N. will deign to honor the Court’s absurd restriction on that State’s inalienable right of self-defense.

Equally as significant, by its purposeful misapplication of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israel’s lawful reacquisition of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem from a State (i.e., Jordan), whose initial acquisition thereof was illegal, the Court has created an absurd legal construct never intended by -- and contrary to the explicit language of -- the Convention. By way of example, let us suppose that China attacked the United States without provocation and captured Hawaii. Let us further suppose that China expelled all U.S. citizens from Hawaii, destroying their communities in the process, and repopulated that archipelago with Chinese citizens. Let us further suppose that the war was terminated by an armistice agreement which acknowledged China’s de facto possession of Hawaii, but which did not cede to China any de jure sovereignty thereof. Let us further suppose that, several decades later, China breached the armistice by again attacking the United States, and that the United States thereupon recaptured Hawaii from China, and subsequently permitted (but did not require) U.S. citizens to relocate to that archipelago and to thereby reestablish destroyed communities as well as to create new communities there. According to the Court’s reasoning, (1) the existence of the second war between China and the United States would be sufficient to cause the Fourth Geneva Convention, pursuant to Article 2 thereof, to be applicable to the United States’ lawful reacquisition of Hawaii from China despite the fact that Hawaii never belonged to China, and (2) the repopulation of Hawaii by U.S. citizens, even though not the product of governmental deportation or transfer, would be violative of Paragraph 6 of Article 49 thereof and, consequently, illegal. No aggrieved State, which has recovered stolen territory in a war of self-defense, would ever agree to abide by this absurd interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Court’s pointed refusal to acknowledge:

(a) that the League of Nations did not recognize the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine as an ethnicity separate and distinct from other clans of Arabs residing elsewhere in the World, referring to them in the Mandate for Palestine only by various generic labels such as “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 2);

(b) that the explicit language of the Mandate for Palestine granted exclusive national rights in Mandatory Palestine to the Jewish residents thereof (see Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraphs 2 & 3; and Articles 2 & 4), while affording only “civil and religious rights” to the Gentile residents, including the Arabs, thereof (Mandate for Palestine, preambular paragraph 2; and Article 2);

(c) that Israel’s post-Armistice retention (from 1949 to 1967) of its prewar sovereignty claims (from 1920 to 1948) to Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem permitted the Jewish State to lawfully exercise those claims by reacquiring these areas in a defensive war after Jordan breached the Armistice Agreement (in 1967);

(d) that (as further discussed below) the explicit language of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention renders the Convention inapplicable to Israel’s reacquisition of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem; and moreover that (as further discussed below), even if the Convention is nonetheless applicable to Israel’s possession of these areas, the Jewish communities therein were not established in violation of Article 49 thereof;

(e) that the Mandate for Palestine, as grafted onto the U.N. Charter via Article 80 thereof, preempts all U.N. Security Council resolutions (i.e., those which have already been and might in the future be issued pursuant to Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter and those which might in the future be issued pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter) and all U.N. General Assembly resolutions (including the U.N. General Assembly’s Palestine Partition Plan of 1947) that have sought to repudiate or diminish the Jewish people’s collective rights of settlement and self-determination in the entire Land of Israel (including Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem); and

(f) that Israel’s security barrier, having been erected on lands over which the Jewish people were granted exclusive national rights by the League of Nations, and being otherwise consistent with the explicit language of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, is consequently lawful

merely serves to demonstrate the unfettered hostility of the Court, acting as proxy for the U.N. General Assembly, towards the Jewish State and the latter’s lawful reacquisition and continued possession of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

In this context, it is noteworthy to point out that, not only has Israel been barred from nominating a judge to the International Court of Justice (due to agency membership restrictions placed upon Israel by the U.N.’s “Western European And Others Group”), but two States which did have approved nominees on the Court at the time of its 2014 Advisory Opinion, namely, Jordan and Egypt, are the very same States whose illegal possession of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence was rectified by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. Consequently, the judicial posture of the approved nominees of these two States -- namely, Awn Shawket al-Khasawneh of Jordan and Nabil el-Araby of Egypt -- towards Israel’s post-1967 possession of these territories was a priori hostile and, consequently, biased.

A glaring example of that bias is the logic-defying statement in the separate concurring opinion by the Court’s approved nominee of Jordan that, although Israel is the post-1967 Occupier of the “West Bank”, Jordan was arguably the pre-1967 Sovereign thereof (see Paragraph 9 of Judge Awn Shawket al-Khasawneh’s concurring opinion).

In such circumstances, these two biased judges should have recused themselves from participating in the crafting of the Advisory Opinion -- as judges have done in 35 other International Court of Justice cases due to conflicts of interest and/or bias since the establishment of the Court. Failing that, the Court itself, in an effort to demonstrate its impartiality, ought to have removed these two judges from the case.

Moreover, the political nature of the International Court of Justice is furthered evidenced by the fact that, upon retiring from the Court, many of its former judges have been appointed to senior political offices in their respective States. For example, Awn Shawket al-Khasawneh of Jordan subsequently became the Prime Minister of Jordan, and Nabil el-Araby of Egypt subsequently became the Foreign Minister of Egypt and thereafter became the Secretary-General of the Egypt-based Arab League.

However, that political pathway also proceeds in the opposite direction. For example, in 2017, Nawaf Salam, who had been Lebanon’s Ambassador to the U.N. from 2007 to 2017, was successfully nominated by Lebanon to be a judge of the International Court of Justice; and, in 2024, he became the President of the Court.

During the term of Lebanon’s Nawaf Salam as President of the International Court of Justice, the Court issued another nonbinding Advisory Opinion regarding Israel, entitled “LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM” dated July 19, 2024.

The Court’s anti-Israel decision was predominantly based upon the perversions of international law previously adopted by the various components of the politicized U.N. system, including the prior anti-Israel resolutions of its Security Council, the prior anti-Israel resolutions of its General Assembly, the prior anti-Israel reports of its Human Rights Council, and the Court’s own anti-Israel Advisory Opinion of 2004. Based upon the foregoing political sources relied upon by the Court, it was predictable that the Court would conclude that Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem was illegal (per paragraph 266 of the Advisory Opinion), and that the Court would consequently declare that Israel must, inter alia:

(1) withdraw its soldiers and police from Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (which includes the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, with its Western Wall and Temple Mount) -- per paragraph 267 of the Advisory Opinion;

(2) “immediately cease all new settlement activity” -- per paragraph 268 of the Advisory Opinion;

(3) compensate the “Palestinians” for the harm caused to them by the “Occupation” -- per paragraphs 269 - 271 of the Advisory Opinion;

(4) expel the entire Jewish population of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (which numbered more than 700,000 as of 2022) -- per paragraph 270 of the Advisory Opinion; and

(5) respect the “right” of the “Palestinian people” to self-determination (i.e., the “right” to establish a 22^nd Arab State, comprising Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem) -- per paragraph 272 of the Advisory Opinion

Significantly, the Court’s expulsion directive, in its application to all Jews presently residing in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, ignored that the fact that a substantial portion of the Jews residing there did not even relocate thereto from Israel proper. Rather, they were born there -- meaning that they were not, as illogically assumed by the Court, “settlers” who were “illegally transferred” thereto by Israel.

The Court’s Opinion was authorized by U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/77/247 of December 30, 2022, entitled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. Based upon the abundance of anti-Israel invective in the Resolution, it is not surprising that the Court would issue another anti-Israel political decision.

Below is the full text of that verbose anti-Israel authorizing Resolution, to wit:

77/247. Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and affirming that these human rights instruments must be respected in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolution 75/98 of 10 December 2020, as well as those adopted at its tenth emergency special session,

Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Human Rights Council,

Recalling also the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and stressing the need for their implementation,

Having considered the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories and the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Special Committee,

Taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, as well as of other relevant recent reports of the Human Rights Council,

Taking note also of the report of the independent international commission of inquiry established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-30/1,

Stressing the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to end impunity, ensure justice, deter further violations, protect civilians and promote peace,

Taking note of the recent report by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia on the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan,

Deeply regretting that 55 years have passed since the onset of the Israeli occupation, and stressing the urgent need for efforts to reverse the negative trends on the ground and to restore a political horizon for advancing and accelerating meaningful negotiations aimed at the achievement of a peace agreement that will bring a complete end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and the resolution of all core final status issues, without exception, leading to a peaceful, just, lasting and comprehensive solution of the question of Palestine,

Aware of the responsibility of the international community to promote human rights and ensure respect for international law, and recalling in this regard its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970,

Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and recalling also relevant General Assembly resolutions,

Noting in particular the Court’s reply, including that the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime are contrary to international law,

Taking note of its resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012,

Noting the accession by Palestine to several human rights treaties and the core humanitarian law conventions, as well as other international treaties,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming also the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,11 to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,

Reaffirming further the obligation of the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention under articles 146, 147 and 148 with regard to penal sanctions, grave breaches and responsibilities of the High Contracting Parties,

Recalling the statement of 15 July 1999 and the declarations adopted on 5 December 2001 and on 17 December 201413 by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, aimed at ensuring respect for the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Reaffirming that all States have the right and the duty to take actions in conformity with international law and international humanitarian law to counter deadly acts of violence against their civilian population in order to protect the lives of their citizens,

Stressing the need for full compliance with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements reached within the context of the Middle East peace process, including the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings, and the implementation of the Quartet road map to a permanent two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

Stressing also the need for the full implementation of the Agreement on Movement and Access and the Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing, both of 15 November 2005, to allow for the freedom of movement of the Palestinian civilian population within and into and out of the Gaza Strip,

Gravely concerned by the tensions and violence in the recent period throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and including with regard to the holy places of Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif [i.e., the Temple Mount], and deploring the loss of innocent civilian life,

Reaffirming that the international community, through the United Nations, has a legitimate interest in the question of the City of Jerusalem and in the protection of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the city, as foreseen in relevant United Nations resolutions on this matter,

Reaffirming also the obligation to respect the historic status quo, the special significance of the holy sites, and the importance of the City of Jerusalem for the three monotheistic religions,

Recognizing that security measures alone cannot remedy the escalating tensions, instability and violence, and calling for full respect for international law, including humanitarian and human rights law, including for the protection of civilian life, as well as for the promotion of human security, the de-escalation of the situation, the exercise of restraint, including from provocative actions and rhetoric, and the establishment of a stable environment conducive to the pursuit of peace,

Expressing grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from the excessive use of force and military operations causing death and injury to Palestinian civilians, including children, women and non-violent, peaceful demonstrators, as well as journalists, medical personnel and humanitarian personnel; the arbitrary imprisonment and detention of Palestinians, some of whom have been imprisoned for decades; the use of collective punishment; the closure of areas; the confiscation of land; the establishment and expansion of settlements; the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949; the destruction of property and infrastructure; the forced displacement of civilians, including attempts at forced transfers of Bedouin communities; and all other actions by it designed to change the legal status, geographical nature and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and demanding the cessation of all such unlawful actions,

Gravely concerned by the ongoing demolition by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian homes, as well as of structures, including schools, provided as international humanitarian aid, in particular in and around Occupied East Jerusalem, including if carried out as an act of collective punishment in violation of international humanitarian law, which has escalated at unprecedented rates, and by the revocation of residence permits and eviction of Palestinian residents of the City of Jerusalem,

Deploring the continuing and negative consequences of the conflicts in and around the Gaza Strip and the high number of casualties among Palestinian civilians in the recent period, including among children, and any violations of international law, and calling for full respect for international humanitarian and human rights law and for the principles of legality, distinction, precaution and proportionality,

Gravely concerned about the disastrous humanitarian situation and the critical socioeconomic and security situation in the Gaza Strip, including that resulting from the prolonged closures and severe economic and movement restrictions that in effect amount to a blockade and deepen poverty and despair among the Palestinian civilian population, and about the short- and long-term detrimental impacts of this situation and the widespread destruction and continued impeding of the reconstruction process by Israel, the occupying Power, on the human rights situation,

Recalling with grave concern the United Nations country team report of August 2012, entitled “Gaza in 2020: a liveable place?”,

Recalling the statement by the President of the Security Council of 28 July 2014,

Stressing the need for the full implementation by all parties of Security Council resolution 1860 (2009) of 8 January 2009 and General Assembly resolution ES-10/18 of 16 January 2009, Stressing also that the situation in the Gaza Strip is unsustainable and that a durable ceasefire agreement must lead to a fundamental improvement in the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, including through the sustained and regular opening of crossing points, and ensure the safety and well-being of civilians on both sides, and regretting the lack of progress made in this regard,

Gravely concerned by reports regarding serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law committed during the successive military operations in the Gaza Strip, and reiterating the necessity for serious follow-up by all parties of the recommendations addressed to them towards ensuring accountability and justice,

Stressing the need for protection of human rights defenders engaged in the promotion of human rights issues in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, to allow them to carry out their work freely and without fear of attacks and harassment,

Expressing deep concern about the Israeli policy of closures and the imposition of severe restrictions, including through hundreds of obstacles to movement, checkpoints and a permit regime, all of which obstruct the freedom of movement of persons and goods, including medical and humanitarian goods, and the follow-up and access to donor-funded projects of development cooperation and humanitarian assistance, throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and impair the Territory’s contiguity, consequently violating the human rights of the Palestinian people and negatively impacting their socioeconomic and humanitarian situation, which remains dire in the Gaza Strip, and the efforts aimed at rehabilitating and developing the Palestinian economy, and calling for the full lifting of restrictions,

Expressing grave concern that thousands of Palestinians, including many children and women, as well as elected representatives, continue to be held in Israeli prisons or detention centres under harsh conditions, including unhygienic conditions, solitary confinement, the extensive use of administrative detention of excessive duration without charge and denial of due process, lack of proper medical care and widespread medical neglect, including for prisoners who are ill, with the risk of fatal consequences, and denial of family visits, that impair their well-being, and expressing grave concern also about the ill-treatment and harassment and all reports of torture of any Palestinian prisoners,

Expressing deep concern about the hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners in protest of the harsh conditions of their imprisonment and detention by the occupying Power, while taking note of agreements reached on conditions of detention in Israeli prisons and calling for their full and immediate implementation,

Recalling the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), and calling for respect for those Rules,

Recalling also the prohibition under international humanitarian law of the deportation of civilians from occupied territories,

Deploring the practice of withholding the bodies of those killed, and calling for the release of the bodies that have not yet been returned to their relatives, in line with international humanitarian law and human rights law, in order to ensure dignified closure in accordance with their religious beliefs and traditions,

Stressing the need for the prevention of all acts of violence, harassment, provocation and incitement by extremist Israeli settlers and groups of armed settlers, especially against Palestinian civilians, including children, and their properties, including homes, agricultural lands and historic and religious sites, including in Occupied East Jerusalem, and deploring the violation of the human rights of Palestinians in this regard, including acts of violence leading to death and injury among civilians,

Convinced of the need for an international presence to monitor the situation, to contribute to ending the violence and protecting the Palestinian civilian population and to help the parties to implement the agreements reached, in this regard recalling the importance of the mandate and the positive contribution of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, and regretting the unilateral decision by the Government of Israel not to renew its mandate,

Stressing the need for an immediate and complete cessation of all acts of violence, including military attacks, destruction and acts of terror,

Stressing also that the protection of civilians is a critical component in ensuring peace and security, as well as the need for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, consistent with the provisions and obligations of international humanitarian law, Stressing further the need to respect the right of peaceful assembly,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of the Palestinian civilian population and the observations made therein on ways and means for ensuring the safety, protection and well-being of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation,

Noting the continued efforts and tangible progress made in the Palestinian security sector, and noting also the continued cooperation that benefits both Palestinians and Israelis, in particular by promoting security and building confidence,

Urging the parties to observe calm and restraint and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, especially in areas of religious and cultural sensitivity, including in East Jerusalem, and to take every possible step to defuse tensions and promote conditions conducive to the credibility and success of the peace negotiations,

Emphasizing the right of all people in the region to the enjoyment of human rights as enshrined in the international human rights covenants,

1. Reiterates that all measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity, and demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention;

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all measures contrary to international law, as well as discriminatory legislation, policies and actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the killing and injury of civilians, the arbitrary detention and imprisonment of civilians, the forced displacement of civilians, including attempts at forced transfers of Bedouin communities, the transfer of its own population into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the destruction and confiscation of civilian property, including home demolitions, including if carried out as collective punishment in violation of international humanitarian law, and any obstruction of humanitarian assistance, and that it fully respect human rights law and comply with its legal obligations in this regard, including in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions;

3. Calls for urgent measures to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and as called for by the Security Council in its resolution 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994;

4. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of the Palestinian civilian population, notably the observations made therein, including the possible expansion of existing protection mechanisms to prevent and deter violations, and calls for continued efforts within the United Nations human rights framework regarding the legal protection and safety of the Palestinian civilian population;

5. Calls for full cooperation by Israel with the relevant special rapporteurs and other relevant mechanisms and inquiries of the Human Rights Council, including the facilitation of entry to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, for monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation therein according to their respective mandates;

6. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all of its settlement activities, the construction of the wall and any other measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, all of which, inter alia, gravely and detrimentally impact the human rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, and the prospects for achieving without delay an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and calls for the full respect and implementation of all relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions in this regard, including Security Council resolution 2334 (2016) of 23 December 2016;

7. Calls for urgent attention to the plight and the rights, in accordance with international law, of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli jails, including those on hunger strike, also calls for efforts between the two sides for the further release of prisoners and detainees, and further calls for respect for the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules);

8. Condemns all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction, especially any use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, particularly in the Gaza Strip, including against journalists, medical personnel and humanitarian personnel, which have caused extensive loss of life and vast numbers of injuries, including among children and women;

9. Also condemns all acts of violence by militants and armed groups, including the firing of rockets, against Israeli civilian areas, resulting in loss of life and injury;

10. Reiterates its demand for the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1860 (2009);

11. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and as demanded in General Assembly resolutions ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004 and ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, and that it immediately cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparations for all damage caused by the construction of the wall, which has gravely impacted the human rights and the socioeconomic living conditions of the Palestinian people;

12. Reiterates the need for respect for the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and for guarantees of the freedom of movement of persons and goods within the Palestinian territory, including movement into and from East Jerusalem, into and from the Gaza Strip, between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and to and from the outside world;

13. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease its imposition of prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, including those amounting to a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and in this regard to fully implement the Agreement on Movement and Access and the Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing, both of 15 November 2005, in order to allow for the sustained and regular movement of persons and goods and for the acceleration of long overdue and massive reconstruction needs and economic recovery in the Gaza Strip, while noting the tripartite agreement facilitated by the United Nations in this regard;

14. Stresses the urgent need to address the continuing health crisis in the Gaza Strip, including by ensuring the provision of adequate infrastructure, medical supplies and equipment, alongside expertise, to deal with the increasing caseload of injuries requiring complex treatment in the context of the protests in the Gaza Strip;

15. Urges Member States to continue to provide emergency assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the financial crisis and the dire socioeconomic and humanitarian situation, particularly in the Gaza Strip;

16. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their inalienable human rights, including their right to self-determination, as a matter of urgency, in the light of the passage of more than 55 years of the Israeli occupation and the continued denial and violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people;

17. Emphasizes the need to preserve and develop the Palestinian institutions and infrastructure for the provision of vital public services to the Palestinian civilian population and the promotion of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and urges in this regard the implementation of the agreement signed in Cairo on 12 October 2017,20 which would be an important step towards achieving Palestinian unity and lead to the effective functioning of the Palestinian Government, including in the Gaza Strip, under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, consistent with the Palestine Liberation Organization commitments and the Quartet principles;

18. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to render an advisory opinion on the following questions, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004:

(a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?

(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?

19. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its seventy-eighth session on the implementation of the present resolution, including with regard to the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories.

Below is Part VII of the Court’s Advisory Opinion, which responds to the questions posed to the Court by the U.N. General Assembly in operative paragraph 18 of the latter’s authorizing Resolution, to wit:

VII. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM ISRAEL’S POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND FROM THE ILLEGALITY OF ISRAEL’S CONTINUED PRESENCE IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

265. The Court has found that Israel’s policies and practices referred to in question (a) are in breach of international law. The maintenance of these policies and practices is an unlawful act of a continuing character entailing Israel’s international responsibility (Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019 (I), pp. 138-139, para. 177).

266. The Court has also found in reply to the first part of question (b) that the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal. The Court will therefore address the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices referred to in question (a) for Israel, together with those arising from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory under question (b), for Israel, for other States and for the United Nations.

A. Legal consequences for Israel

267. With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible. As the Court affirmed in its Wall Advisory Opinion, the obligation of a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act to put an end to that act is well established in general international law, and the Court has on a number of occasions confirmed the existence of that obligation (Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019 (I), p. 139, para. 178; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 197, para. 150).

268. The Court further observes that, with respect to the policies and practices of Israel referred to in question (a) which were found to be unlawful, Israel has an obligation to put an end to those unlawful acts. In this respect, Israel must immediately cease all new settlement activity. Israel also has an obligation to repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation, including those which discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as all measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.

269. Israel is also under an obligation to provide full reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts to all natural or legal persons concerned (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 198, para. 152). The Court recalls that the essential principle is that “reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” (Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 47). Reparation includes restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction.

270. Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.

271. In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate, in accordance with the applicable rules of international law, all natural or legal persons, and populations, where that may be the case, having suffered any form of material damage as a result of Israel’s wrongful acts under the occupation.

272. The Court emphasizes that the obligations flowing from Israel’s internationally wrongful acts do not release it from its continuing duty to perform the international obligations which its conduct is in breach of. Specifically, Israel remains bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 197, para. 149).

The political nature of the Court was further exemplified by the Opinion’s political declaration that:

283. The Court also considers that the realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign State, living side by side in peace with the State of Israel within secure and recognized borders for both States, as envisaged in resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, would contribute to regional stability and the security of all States in the Middle East.

The foregoing political prescription reinforces the conclusion that the Court’s purported “legal analysis” of Israel’s presence in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” had nothing to do with international law, and everything to do with international politics.

In order to highlight only some of the many errors of fact, law, and logic in the Opinion, set forth below are the statements of the Court, culminating in its conclusion (in paragraph 229 of the Opinion) that, regarding its treatment of the “Palestinian” residents of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, Israel has engaged in “racial discrimination”, thereby violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of December 21, 1965 (commonly known as “CERD”), to wit:

224. A number of participants have argued that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to segregation or apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of CERD.

225. Article 3 of CERD provides as follows: “States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.” This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.

226. The Court observes that Israel’s policies and practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem implement a separation between the Palestinian population and the settlers transferred by Israel to the territory.

227. This separation is first and foremost physical: Israel’s settlement policy furthers the fragmentation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the encirclement of Palestinian communities into enclaves. As a result of discriminatory policies and practices such as the imposition of a residence permit system and the use of distinct road networks, which the Court has discussed above, Palestinian communities remain physically isolated from each other and separated from the communities of settlers (see, for example, paragraphs 200 and 219).

228. The separation between the settler and Palestinian communities is also juridical. As a result of the partial extension of Israeli law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, settlers and Palestinians are subject to distinct legal systems in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see paragraphs 135-137 above). To the extent that Israeli law applies to Palestinians, it imposes on them restrictions, such as the requirement for a permit to reside in East Jerusalem, from which settlers are exempt. In addition, Israel’s legislation and measures that have been applicable for decades treat Palestinians differently from settlers in a wide range of fields of individual and social activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (see paragraphs 192-222 above).

229. The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD.

By asserting that Israel engages in “racial discrimination” against “Palestinians” in violation of CERD, the Court ignored the following:

(1) The “settlers” of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem are citizens of Israel, while the “Palestinians” thereof are not.

(2) CERD is inapplicable to State-imposed distinctions between citizens and noncitizens, to wit:

2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.

(CERD, Part I, Article 1, paragraph 2)

(3) The foregoing means that State-imposed distinctions between citizens and noncitizens do not constitute “racial discrimination”, which is defined in CERD, as follows:

1. In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

(CERD, Part I, Article 1, paragraph 1)

(4) Israel’s Arab citizens have the same rights in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem as do Israel’s Jewish citizens, thereby disproving the Court’s absurd claim that legislative and/or policy discrimination between “settlers” and “Palestinians” is based on ethnicity rather than citizenship.

(5) In Israeli-governed Area C of Judea & Samaria, and in the eastern portion of Jerusalem, citizen “settlers” and noncitizen “Palestinians” freely mix in public areas, in supermarkets, in restaurants, and in industrial parks that employ people without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion. Furthermore, both citizen “settlers” and noncitizen “Palestinians” attend the Israeli-chartered Ariel University, located in the Jewish city of Ariel in Samaria. The foregoing proves that Israel’s social, economic, and educational policies in Israeli-governed Area C of Judea & Samaria, and in the eastern portion of Jerusalem, are integrationist rather than segregationist -- for both citizens and noncitizens.

Moreover, in the context of CERD, the Court lied when it stated:

“The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. …”

(paragraph 229 of the Adversary Opinion)

While Israel does prohibit Israeli citizens -- both Jews and “Palestinians” -- from entering P.L.O.-governed Area A of Judea & Samaria (where Israeli security forces are not present), it did this for security reasons only, after many Israeli citizens -- mostly Jews -- had been murdered upon doing so. Contrarily, Israeli citizens are permitted to enter and reside in P.L.O.-governed Area B thereof (where Israeli security forces are present) and in Israeli-governed Area C thereof as well as in Jerusalem (including the eastern portion thereof).

Except for the foregoing common-sense security measure regarding Area A, there is no Israeli law or policy that mandates separation between “settler” and “Palestinian” communities in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

However, although not prohibited by Israel, Jews have generally not purchased homes in the Arab-populated communities of Areas B & C of Judea & Samaria due to the fact that

(1) Arab hostility to Jews renders such purchases almost impossible, as well as impracticable; and

(2) many Jews prefer to reside in exclusively-Jewish villages and neighborhoods.

Nonetheless, for historical and religious reasons, there have been two exceptions to the foregoing Jewish-habitation policy, namely, the eastern portion of Hebron and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (both of which areas are governed by Israel), where Jews have (a) purchased homes in Arab neighborhoods through intermediaries, and (b) reacquired Jordanian-confiscated Jewish-owned homes in Arab neighborhoods through legal proceedings, thereby integrating those Arab neighborhoods in both cities. Of course, Jews have also established Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern portions of Hebron and Jerusalem.

However, not only have “settlers” relocated to exclusively-“Palestinian” neighborhoods in the eastern portions of Jerusalem and Hebron, but “Palestinians” have also relocated to exclusively-“settler” neighborhoods in the eastern portion of Jerusalem. In fact, “Palestinians” reside, together with “settlers”, in three “settlements” situated in the eastern portion of Jerusalem, namely, the Jewish neighborhoods of French Hill, Pisgat Ze'ev, and Neve Yaacov, thereby integrating those “settlements”.

That is why the Court deceptively referenced “a near-complete separation” of Jews and Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem -- without explaining why Israel, which allegedly seeks to enforce complete segregation between the Arabs and Jews, failed to do so (see paragraph 229 of the Advisory Opinion). By declining to discuss the integrated neighborhoods of the eastern portions of Jerusalem and Hebron, the Court sought to avoid highlighting the following:

(1) The residential segregation that exists in most of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem is due to

(a) Arab hostility to Jews,

(b) the desire of many Jews to reside in exclusively-Jewish villages and neighborhoods, and

(c) the desire of many Arabs to reside in exclusively-Arab villages and neighborhoods,

rather than due to any Israeli law or policy that mandates such segregation (except regarding Area A of Judea & Samaria for security reasons).

The fact that

(a) “settlers” were legally able to integrate “Palestinian” neighborhoods in the eastern portions of Jerusalem and Hebron, and

(b) “Palestinians” were legally able to integrate “settler” neighborhoods in the eastern portion of Jerusalem

further disproves the Court’s absurd claim Israeli law or policy mandates (or even endorses) segregation between “settlers” and “Palestinians”.

(2) The Court’s ostensible anti-segregation stance is belied by its demand that Israel must expel all Jews from Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, as that expulsion would convert the integrated neighborhoods of the eastern portions of Jerusalem and Hebron into exclusively-Arab neighborhoods. For, Expulsion -- like Segregation -- is the antithesis of Integration.

Additionally, in reviewing the history of the Jewish State’s establishment in 1948 and the subsequent reacquisition by the Jewish people (acting through Israel) of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1967, the Court attempted to obfuscate the fact that the “Palestinian” Arabs, the Arab League (via its “Arab Liberation Army”), and multiple Arab States serially attempted to destroy the State of Israel and annihilate its Jewish population during that era -- which genocidal activity was the direct cause of the Jewish people’s reacquisition of the remainder of its ancestral homeland in 1967. In order to accomplish that dishonest feat, the Court employed the briefest descriptions and passive phrasing to explain the origins of Israel’s War of Independence and Israel’s Six Day War, to wit:

53. On 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence with reference to the General Assembly resolution 181 (II); an armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States, and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.

…

57. In 1967, an armed conflict (also known as the “Six-Day War”) broke out between Israel and neighbouring countries Egypt, Syria and Jordan. By the time hostilities had ceased, Israeli forces occupied all the territories of Palestine under British Mandate beyond the Green Line (see paragraph 54 above).

Moreover, in order to obfuscate post-1967 Arab aggression against Israel, the Court also used the briefest description and passive phrasing to explain the origins of Israel’s Yom Kippur War, which was initiated by Egypt and Syria (with assistance from their many allies) against Israel in 1973, to wit:

60. In October 1973, another armed conflict broke out between Egypt, Syria and Israel.

Furthermore, in order to obfuscate the true nature of the P.L.O. -- which was created three years prior to Israel’s reacquisition of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem with the sole objective of destroying the Jewish State, which then existed only within its 1949 armistice demarcation lines -- the Court employed a dishonestly-benign explanation for its establishment, to wit:

56. In 1964, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was created to represent the Palestinian people.

Moreover, the Court’s explanation also dishonestly implied that the “Palestinian people” established the P.L.O. However, as the Court was well aware, that terrorist militia was created by the Arab States, acting through the Arab League, to be the latter’s genocidal proxy militia. Consequently, as the Court was also well aware, the Arab League’s “Palestine Liberation Organization” succeeded to the genocidal role that had been previously played by the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” in the months prior to the pan-Arab invasion of Israel in 1948.

Finally, in a remarkable statement that dismissed the Jewish people’s almost 4,000-year-old connection to the Land of Israel, the Court stated that it had not been provided with any evidence thereof, as if universally-acknowledged History itself was not evidence of that connection, to wit:

178. The Court notes the argument made by two participants in the present proceedings according to which Israel’s “deep historical ties and own valid claims to” the territory it now occupies have been disregarded by the very formulation of the question [posed to the Court by the U.N. General Assembly regarding the legal status of Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem]. The Court observes, first, that it is not called upon to pronounce on [Jewish] historical claims concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and, secondly, that no information has been provided to the Court to substantiate such claims. In any event, the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force entails that the use of force is not a means for resolving claims of sovereignty.

Despite the systemic bias within the U.N. system (including the “International Court of Justice”) against Israel, there was one courageous judge who rejected the Court’s Opinion in toto. That judge was the approved nominee of Uganda -- Court Vice President Julia Sebutinde. Below is the official summary of her dissenting opinion, to wit:

The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the request for an advisory opinion  However, in exercising its discretion judiciously and maintaining the integrity of its judicial role, the Court should have refrained from rendering the advisory opinion requested  The Advisory Opinion omits the historical backdrop crucial to understanding the multifaceted Israeli-Palestinian dispute and is tantamount to a one-sided “forensic audit” of Israel’s compliance with international law  The Advisory Opinion does not reflect a balanced and impartial examination of the pertinent legal and factual questions  It is imperative to grasp the historical nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the competing territorial claims of the parties in former British Mandatory Palestine, as well as the previous and ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict through the negotiation framework identified by the Security Council  The Court lacks adequate, accurate, balanced and reliable information before it to enable it to judiciously arrive at a fair assessment and conclusions on the disputed questions of fact  The Advisory Opinion not only circumvents Israel’s consent to the Court’s resolution of the issues involved, but also circumvents and potentially jeopardizes the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding negotiation framework for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [i.e., the “Oslo Accords”]  The Advisory Opinion also contains several shortcomings, in particular with respect to its answer to Question 2  The timeline proposed by the Court for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories is impracticable and disregards the matters agreed upon in the existing negotiating framework, the security threats posed to Israel and the need to balance competing sovereignty claims  The Court’s application of the principle of full reparation is not appropriate in the circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict  The Court has misapplied the law of belligerent occupation and has adopted presumptions implicit in the question of the General Assembly without a prior critical analysis of relevant issues, including the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the territory of the former British Mandate, the question of Israel’s borders and its competing sovereignty claims, the nature of the Palestinian right of self-determination and its relationship to Israel’s own rights and security concerns  The only avenue for a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the negotiation framework set out in the United Nations and bilateral agreements [i.e., the “Oslo Accords”].

Particularly noteworthy is Judge Sebutinde’s cogent discussion of the decisive legal doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris in relation to Israel’s rightful territorial sovereignty and its rightful international borders, and her acknowledgment that the international community has chosen to ignore that legal doctrine. Below is paragraph 73 of her dissenting opinion, to wit:

73. Israel’s independence would thus appear to fall squarely within the bounds of circumstances that trigger the principle of uti possidetis juris. Applying the rule would appear to dictate that Israel’s borders are those of the Palestine Mandate that preceded it, except where otherwise agreed upon by Israel and its relevant neighbours. Indeed, Israel’s peace treaties with neighbouring States to date — with Egypt and Jordan — appear to reinforce it. These treaties ratify borders between Israel and its neighbours explicitly based on the boundaries of the British Mandate of Palestine. Likewise, in demarcating the so-called “Blue Line” between Israel and Lebanon in 2000, the United Nations Secretary General relied upon the boundaries of the British Mandate of Palestine. Given the location of the borders of the Mandate of Palestine, applying the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to Israel would mean that Israel has territorial sovereignty over all the disputed areas of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, except to the degree that Israel has voluntarily yielded sovereignty since its independence. This conclusion stands in opposition to the widely espoused position that international law gives Israel little or no sovereign claim to these areas.

Tellingly, Court President Nawaf Salam, author of the Advisory Opinion, was never a judge in Lebanon. Conversely, Court Vice President Julia Sebutinde, author of the dissenting opinion, was not only a judge in Uganda, but she was a judge of the High Court of Uganda. Consequently, it is not surprising that the dissenting opinion was infinitely-more faithful to logic, facts, and international law than was the Advisory Opinion.

Moreover, Nawaf Salam was the approved nominee of a State (i.e., Lebanon) that does not recognize the existence of Israel and was then engaged (via the dominant Hezbollah faction of its government) in a war against Israel. Approved nominees of Somalia, China, and South Africa -- all diplomatically hostile to Israel -- also participated in the crafting of the Advisory Opinion.

That biased judges were permitted by the U.N. to participate in formulating the Court’s Advisory Opinions of 2004 and 2024 speaks volumes about the inability of the U.N. system to deal with Israel in an unbiased manner.

As was concluded, in part, by a 2005 task force report on the United Nations commissioned by the United States Congress:

“Contrary to the equality of rights for all nations enshrined in the U.N. Charter, Israel continues to be denied rights enjoyed by all other member States; and a level of systematic hostility against it is routinely expressed, organized, and funded within the U.N. system.”

(Page 5 of the United States Institute of Peace’s “Report of the Task Force on the United Nations” (entitled “American Interests And U.N. Reform”), prepared at the direction of the United States Congress per Public Law 108-447 of 2005)

This dark conclusion was yet again vindicated in late September 2008 when the President of the U.N. General Assembly (Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann) publicly embraced Iran’s President (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) immediately after the latter had given a speech to the U.N. General Assembly at its opening session for the 2008 - 2009 year demonizing Israel and rhapsodizing over its future destruction, and in late November 2008 when -- during a conference held as part of the U.N.’s annual “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People” festivities -- that same U.N. official declared that the nations of the World must subject Israel to “a campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions”. Of course, this U.N. official was neither dismissed from his position nor criticized by any component of the U.N. system for his anti-Israel invective.

Moreover, not only have U.N. officials suffered no adverse consequences for openly expressing their hatred of Israel, but U.N. officials who have acknowledged that Israel complies with the Laws of War (also known as International Humanitarian Law) or who have condemned terrorist attacks against Israel have been summarily dismissed from their positions for being insufficiently anti-Israel.

For example, Matthias Schmale, Director of the Gaza branch of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East was dismissed from his position as punishment for a May 23, 2021 interview with Israel’s Channel 12 television station during which, in response to a query about the precision employed by Israel in order to avoid harming Gazan civilians during Israeli airstrikes, he stated that:

“I’m not a military expert, but I would not dispute that. I also have the impression that there is a huge sophistication in the way the Israeli military struck over the last 11 days, so that’s not my issue. I’ve had many colleagues describe to me that they feel that, in comparison with the 2014 war, this time the strikes felt much more vicious in terms of their impact. So yes, they didn’t hit -- with some exceptions -- civilian targets, but the viciousness, ferocity of the strikes was heavily felt.”

Tellingly, although Schmale’s statement criticized Israel for its “viciousness” and “ferocity” and although he later apologized for conceding the precision of Israeli airstrikes, the U.N. nonetheless terminated his employment.

Similarly, Sarah Muscroft, United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, was dismissed from her position for stating on the “Twitter” social media platform (since renamed as “X”) on August 8, 2022 that she was “… relieved to see a ceasefire agreed ending hostilities impacting both Palestinians [in Gaza] and Israeli civilians. Such indiscriminate rocket fire of Islamic Jihad provoking Israeli retaliation is condemned. The safety of all civilians is paramount -- the ceasefire must be upheld.” Tellingly, although Muscroft promptly deleted her online statement condemning Islamic Jihad, and although she simultaneously apologized for her “poor judgment” in issuing that statement, the U.N. nonetheless terminated her employment.

Yet, as despicable as is the United Nations’ treatment of Israel, doesn’t the creation of the annually-observed “International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust” (created by General Assembly Resolution no. 60/7 of November 1, 2005), commonly known as “International Holocaust Remembrance Day”, at least prove that the United Nations detests the Jewish State rather than the Jewish people? -- Well, no. International hostility towards Israel is driven almost exclusively by the latter’s unique status as the nation-state and, consequently, as the political embodiment of the Jewish people. An Israel comprised mainly of -- and governed by -- Arabs rather than Jews would never have become the preeminent target for isolation, calumny, derision, and condemnation by the United Nations, its specialized agencies and affiliated organizations, and its official conferences and publications. Furthermore, the Resolution -- with its repeated emphasis on employing Holocaust education “in order to help prevent future acts of genocide” (Resolution, operative paragraphs 2 & 6) -- is more likely to be used as basis for denouncing the Jewish State’s efforts to protect itself against future genocidal aggression than as a basis for justifying those preventive efforts. This is because, by coupling educational commemoration of the Holocaust with routine condemnation of Israel, the international community has been able to mainstream a perverse role reversal -- that was already being promoted by Antisemitic fringe groups for the past several decades -- whereby the Jewish State is likened to Nazi Germany, while the “Palestinian” Arabs are likened to the Holocaust-era Jewish people by respected components of the international community. This very paradigm was advanced by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein in his opening statement to the U.N. Human Rights Council on June 6, 2017, which explicitly linked the “Occupation” to the Holocaust. One of the main objectives of this paradigm is to inhibit Israel from employing sufficient force to decisively defeat its “Palestinian” adversaries, lest it be subject to international isolation and war crimes tribunals.

The marriage between the internationally-sanctioned commemoration of the Holocaust and mainstream demonization of the Jewish people qua the Jewish State is best illustrated by two events which took place in Britain just before and during that country’s official observance of International Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2013.

On the day before the commemoration (January 26, 2013), after he had signed the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Book of Commitment” in the British parliament’s House of Commons honoring the victims of the Holocaust, Member of Parliament David Ward posted on his parliamentary website the following statement likening the Jewish people to Nazis:

“Having visited [Nazi death camp] Auschwitz twice – once with my family and once with local schools – I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

On the day of the commemoration (January 27, 2013), the Sunday Times newspaper published an editorial cartoon which brazenly promoted the vilest of medieval Christian blood libels -- expertly employed by Nazi Germany in the Past and by the Arab World and Islamo-fascist Iran in the Present -- against the Jewish State. As described by the Jerusalem Post newspaper (excerpt republished), to wit:

UK paper posts anti-Israel cartoon on Holocaust day

By JPOST.COM STAFF

27/01/2013 [January 27, 2013]

On Holocaust Memorial Day, 'Sunday Times' publishes cartoon depicting PM paving wall with Palestinian blood.

The Sunday Times marked Holocaust Memorial Day in a less-than-traditional manner, running a virulently anti-Israel cartoon depicting a big-nosed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu paving a wall with the blood and limbs of writhing Palestinians.

The cartoon included a caption beneath the image entitled “Israeli elections -- will cementing peace continue?” Drawn by Gerald Scarfe, the cartoon appeared in the national paper on Sunday.

. . .

All rights reserved © 1995 - 2013 The Jerusalem Post

A corollary effect of this role reversal (whereby Israel is always branded the aggressor and, in consequence thereof, is constantly being condemned for defending itself) is that the Jewish State, in its assigned role as the “aggressor”, is also assigned primary blame for the eruption of Antisemitism. The international community is able to make this absurd claim via a reversal of the Cause-and-Effect relationship between Antisemitism and the political Zionism, whereby the latter is asserted to be the determinant -- rather than the result -- of the former, despite the indisputable historical fact that Antisemitism (in all of its various manifestations) predates the political Zionist Movement by several millennia.

While this role reversal and its corollary effect obviously advance the propaganda goals of the Islamic World, they also soothe the “guilty conscience” of Europe. For, if the Zionism-infected Jews are such brutish oppressors, then the Europeans can certainly justify feeling absolved of the Evil that they themselves have perpetrated against the Jewish people over the past several millennia, culminating in the Holocaust. Furthermore, by supporting a “Palestinian” struggle for “freedom” which has resulted, and continues to result, in mass murder and mayhem against the Jewish people, the Europeans have discovered a “morally” acceptable means of condoning the very thing of which they desire to feel absolved.

However, even if the preceding analysis seems overly harsh, it cannot be denied -- after juxtaposing (a) the U.N.’s belated remorse over the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis and their transnational collaborators against the Jewish people during the prior century against (b) the U.N.’s persistent hostility to the Jewish State’s exercise of its inherent right of self-defense against its current genocidal enemies -- that there is much greater support at the United Nations for mourning long-dead Jews than for protecting presently-living Jews.

Furthermore, ostracism of Israel is not limited to the Jewish State’s relationship with the components of the United Nations system.

Notably, from May 1948 until June 2006 -- commencing long before Israel’s reacquisition of the remainder of its ancient homeland in 1967 -- Israel was the only country in the World whose national medical relief agency was barred from membership in the “International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies” by decree of its gatekeeper, the “International Committee of the Red Cross” (whose acronym is “ICRC”). The declared pretext for this exclusion was that the “Star of David” (which is the symbol of Judaism and is also known as the “Jewish Star”), being the official emblem of Israel’s national medical relief agency “Magen David Adom b’Yisrael” (meaning: “Red Star of David in Israel” or, alternatively, “Red Shield of David in Israel”, and whose English-language acronym is “MDA”), was not a permissible medical emblem for a member Society of the International Federation.

In order to deflect charges of Antisemitism, the ICRC disingenuously explained that its regulations had always required all member societies of the International Federation to adopt and display either the emblem of a Red Cross (which is the symbol of Christianity) or the emblem of a Red Crescent (which is the symbol of Islam), either of which Israel’s MDA was free to adopt as its exclusive emblem in order for it to be admitted to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. However, this explanation always lacked authenticity, as the ICRC had permitted Iran’s national medical relief agency, as a member of the International Federation, to employ as its exclusive emblem the “Red Lion And Sun” (from 1929 until 1980, at which time Iran, its secular monarchy having been overthrown by an Islamic oligarchy in 1979, reverted to using the emblem of a Red Crescent) and, before that, had permitted Nazi Germany’s national medical relief agency, as a member of the International Federation, to employ as its exclusive emblem an eagle clutching a Cross with its talons.

Moreover, during a November 1999 meeting of the International Federation in Geneva, Switzerland, Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the ICRC, demonstrated his organization’s true attitude towards the Jewish State by candidly declaring to Bernadine Healy, President of the American Red Cross: “If we are going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the Swastika?”

However, in December 2005, after coercing Israel’s recognition of the “Palestine Red Crescent Society” as the national medical relief agency of “Palestine”, the ICRC, pursuant to the Third Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (formally entitled the “Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005”), adopted a third permissible medical emblem -- the Red Crystal -- which (without any addition, alteration or embellishment thereto unless agreed to by the host country) could be used on international humanitarian missions by any member Society instead of the Red Cross emblem or the Red Crescent emblem. Although the Third Additional Protocol was internationally celebrated as establishing the ICRC’s impartiality towards Israel, in reality it further solidified the ICRC’s Antisemitic refusal to admit MDA to the International Federation as long as MDA continued to employ the Red Jewish Star as its emblem for all purposes; for, no other national medical relief agency, as its price of admission to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, was required to abandon its emblem when participating in international humanitarian missions.

The ICRC thereupon offered to tolerate MDA’s continued use of the Red Jewish Star as its emblem within Israel’s former 1949 armistice demarcation lines (while falsely redefining those ceasefire lines as being Israel’s international borders), provided that MDA agreed to: (1) close all of its facilities and cease all of its operations in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and (2) use the Red Crystal as its emblem when participating in international humanitarian missions. In summary, the ICRC offered Israel a tiny concession, which required the latter to make huge reciprocal concessions (which were both humiliating and delegitimizing). Unsurprisingly, the Jewish State, always hungry for international acceptance (even if feigned), agreed to the ICRC’s offer.

Subsequently, in June 2006, after having committed to employ the Red Crystal as its sole and unadulterated emblem on international humanitarian missions (unless the host country permitted a small Star of David to be inserted within the Red Crystal emblem), and after having also agreed to support the simultaneous admission of the Palestine Red Crescent Society into the International Federation (despite the fact that the Palestine Red Crescent Society did not -- as has always been required by the regulations of the ICRC -- represent a sovereign State, thereby rendering it the only member Society of the International Federation which did not represent a sovereign State), MDA was finally permitted by the ICRC to become a member Society of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

However, should anyone thereby conclude that a historic injustice had finally been redressed, it is pointed out that the ICRC, which prides itself on its official neutrality and consequently claims to eschew all partisan positions and activities in favor of providing nonpartisan humanitarian relief in all situations of conflict, has continued its wholesale abandonment of those vaunted principles in the case of Israel.

As evidence of its abandonment of neutrality, the ICRC continues to assert that Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (as well as the Golan Heights and Gaza) are “occupied territories”. This position was clearly manifested in the ICRC-brokered “Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement on Operational Arrangements between the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the Magen David Adom in Israel” dated November 28, 2005, in which MDA (acting as a proxy for the Jewish State) was required to: (a) acknowledge that only the Palestine Red Crescent Society was authorized to operate in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (see Memorandum, paragraph 2), and (b) remove its Red Star of David emblem from all ambulances and medical stations situated in the Jewish communities and neighborhoods that are located in these areas (see Memorandum, paragraph 3), to wit:

2. MDA [Magen David Adom] and PRCS [Palestine Red Crescent Society] recognize that PRCS is the authorized National Society in the Palestinian territory and that this territory is within the geographical scope of the operational activities and the competences of PRCS. MDA and PRCS will respect each other’s jurisdiction and operate in accordance with the Statutes and Rules of the Movement.

3. After the Third Additional Protocol is adopted and by the time MDA is admitted by the General Assembly of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies:

a. MDA will ensure that it has no chapters outside the internationally recognized borders of the State of Israel [i.e., beyond Israel’s former 1949 ceasefire lines, including the eastern portion of Jerusalem];

b. Operational activities of one Society within the jurisdiction of the other Society will be conducted in accordance with the consent provision of resolution 11 of the 1921 international conference.

Yet, despite Israel’s humiliating concessions to the “International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement” (which comprises the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and each member Society thereof), MDA’s possible employment (with the permission of the host country) of a small Jewish Star within the Red Crystal emblem on international humanitarian missions was rendered impossible. For, it paradoxically placed MDA personnel in grave danger from hostile forces that might be operating within the host country. This so because the Third Additional Protocol deprives MDA personnel of their international protective status -- otherwise accorded to humanitarian personnel under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 -- if they choose to embellish the Red Crystal emblem (e.g., by inserting a small Jewish Star within the Red Crystal) on international humanitarian missions. In fact, after its ratification of the Third Additional Protocol on November 22, 2007, Israel was eventually pressured into formally acknowledging the Protocol’s deprivation of international protective status. As set forth on the ICRC website:

Declaration by the State of Israel made on 5 November 2008:

On 5 November 2008, the State of Israel deposited with the Swiss Federal Council the following declaration referring to the text contained in the instrument of ratification of the Protocol III deposited by the State of Israel on 22 November 2007 (notification GEN 3/07 of 26 November 2007) (original English version):

«The Embassy of the State of Israel presents its compliments to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and has the honour to refer to the declaration made by Israel upon ratification of the Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. In response to questions raised in relation to this declaration, the State of Israel wishes to confirm that this declaration is not intended to enable Israel to derogate from any of the provisions of the Protocol. It also recognizes that under the terms of the Protocol, the Red Crystal, when used as a protective emblem, may not incorporate any additional emblems or combine them as part of the protective emblem.»

In summary, this means that, on international humanitarian missions, MDA personnel will be stripped of the international protective status accorded to them by the Geneva Conventions if (after obtaining permission from the host country) they dare to embellish their Red Crystal emblem with a Jewish Star.

Furthermore, the ICRC continues to condemn Israel for the latter’s necessary use of even passive security measures (such as its security barrier and fixed checkpoints) to protect its civilian population centers from “Palestinian” suicide bombers and other terrorists.

Consequently, although Israel’s national medical relief agency is now a member Society of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, its price of admission thereto included its capitulation on the international and even domestic use of its official emblem, the abandonment of its operations in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and its agreement that the medical relief agency of the non-sovereign Palestinian Authority be accorded international recognition equal to that of the national medical relief agency of sovereign Israel. Accordingly, in an exercise of extreme partisanship, the ICRC’s official recognition of Israel’s national medical relief agency was conditioned, not only upon the MDA’s international abandonment of its own sovereign emblem, but also upon Israel’s implicit acceptance of a nonexistent “Palestine”.

The ICRC’s lofty “Mission Statement”, published on its website, states in full, as follows:

The ICRC's Mission Statement:

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.

The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.

Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Geneva Conventions and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It directs and coordinates the international activities conducted by the Movement in armed conflicts and other situations of violence.

Yet, being a part of the “International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement” has not benefitted Israel at all. For, when thousands of Gazans perpetrated a horrific massacre in Israel proper on October 7, 2023, and forcibly transferred hundreds of survivors to Gaza (to serve as human shields and hostages for Gazan terrorist militias in violation of the Laws of War), ICRC representatives in Gaza -- in flagrant violation of the ICRC’s self-described wartime role as a neutral party that undertakes humanitarian activities for the benefit of all belligerents -- refused to deliver to the abductees any food and/or (with respect to the infirm abductees) medication, and even refused to meet with the abductees in order to determine which of them (if any) were still alive and to evaluate whether the conditions of their illegal confinement satisfied minimum humanitarian standards. This discriminatory behavior is consistent with the historical refusal of ICRC representatives in Gaza to visit captured Israeli soldiers and civilians in prior years. Even more disturbing, it is also consistent with the ICRC’s horrendous behavior during the Holocaust, when its representatives refused to visit Jews in European and/or North African detention camps -- whether slave labor or death camps.

Then there is the “Organisation internationale de la Francophonie” (meaning: “International Organization of the French-speaking World”), more commonly as known as “La Francophonie”, which is an intergovernmental organization comprised of 77 countries and regions (as members, associate members and observers), which are former French colonies and/or in which a portion of the population speaks French as a primary or secondary language and/or in which there is a cultural affinity with France. Although a significant portion of Israel’s population derives from France or former French colonies in North Africa and is, consequently, Francophone, the Jewish State has been barred from any participation in La Francophonie.

Moreover, even where Israel has never been barred from membership in a particular international organization, the international community’s hostility towards the Jewish State has nonetheless manifested itself in the ugliest of ways. For example, after the murder of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches by “Palestinian” Arab terrorists (acting under instructions from the Palestine Liberation Organization) during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany (commonly known as the “Munich Massacre”), the International Olympic Committee refused to cancel or postpone the remainder of the Games, thereby demonstrating both its disdain for the Jewish State and its indifference to the sensitivities of the Jewish victims’ families. In subsequent years (until 2021), despite having permitted memorial ceremonies to be held during the Olympic Games for other deceased Olympic athletes, and despite having permitted a memorial ceremony to be held during the Olympic Games for victims of terrorism unrelated to the Games (e.g., the moment of silence observed during the opening ceremony of the 2002 Olympic Games for the victims of the September 11, 2001 mega terrorist attack against the United States), the I.O.C. steadfastly refused to permit any memorial ceremony to be held during the Games for the victims of the Munich Massacre. In particular, the I.O.C. refused a request -- prompted by the 40th anniversary of the Munich Massacre -- (initiated by students at Catholic University of America and subsequently adopted by Israel and several other countries) that a moment of silence be observed during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games for the murdered Israeli athletes and coaches. The official explanation for the I.O.C.’s longstanding refusal -- including its rejection of a mere moment of silence during the 2012 Olympic Games -- had always been that, by memorializing these Jewish victims of Arab terrorism, the I.O.C. would be politicizing the Games. Of course, by its longstanding refusal to memorialize these particular victims -- and only these particular victims -- the I.O.C. had already politicized the Games by implicitly legitimizing the perpetration of the Munich Massacre, especially in light of the fact that, during the opening ceremony of these same 2012 Olympic Games, the I.O.C. did permit a memorial ceremony for the victims of the July 7, 2005 terrorist attack against the London transit system. The significance of the I.O.C.’s Antisemitic position was formally acknowledged by the Palestinian Authority which sent a letter of appreciation to the I.O.C. in July 2012, lauding its rejection of the request that a moment of silence be observed during the 2012 Olympic Games for the victims of the Munich Massacre. However, this policy finally changed when the I.O.C., after a 49-year delay, finally permitted a moment of silence for the victims of the Munich Massacre during the opening ceremony for the 2021 Olympic Games.

Then there is the European Union. In July 2013, the E.U. issued a ban on funding or coordinating with any Jewish organization which is located in or which provides services to Judea, Samaria or the eastern portion of Jerusalem (except if that Jewish organization aids the Arab residents of those areas and/or promotes an anti-Jewish settlement agenda). The official reason for the funding ban is the E.U’s refusal to be complicit in Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestinian” lands. However, contrariwise, the E.U. does fund organizations which are located in and/or provide services to the territories of Western Sahara (occupied by Morocco) and northeastern Cyprus (occupied by Turkiye) in coordination, respectively, with the governments of Morocco and Turkiye. The hypocritical E.U. relentlessly seeks to stigmatize and thereby delegitimize the Jewish people’s lawful possession of its ancestral homeland, even while it works hard to sanitize and thereby legitimize the unlawful occupations that exist elsewhere in the World.

When it suits its diplomatic interests, even the United States -- Israel’s closest ally -- sometimes promotes international ostracism of the Jewish State. Since January 1983, when the United States (at the direction of President Ronald Reagan) created the U.S. Central Command (commonly known as “CENTCOM”) as a mechanism for the U.S. military to interact with States in and near the Middle East, only one geographically-relevant U.S. ally has been excluded from that U.S. military organization’s area of responsibility -- Israel. Instead, although the Jewish State is completely surrounded by CENTCOM States, it was illogically included within the area of responsibility of the U.S. European Command (commonly known as “EUCOM”). The exclusion of Israel from CENTCOM’s area of responsibility sent a message to the Arab World that, despite the close bilateral relationship between the U.S. and the Jewish State, the former nonetheless implicitly condoned the pan-Arab attempt to isolate the latter within the Middle East. However, 38 years later (in January 2021) this illogical policy was reversed, when the United States (at the direction of President Donald Trump) added Israel to CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, thereby signaling to the other CENTCOM States that the U.S. unabashedly regarded Israel as a valued partner within the Middle East.

Conversely, in September 2011, in an effort to more effectively combat terrorist groups, the U.S. created the “Global Counterterrorism Forum”, with an initial membership comprised of the European Union and 29 countries. Among the latter were 10 Muslim countries (namely, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates), many of which (via tolerating, hosting, funding or providing ideological justification) had themselves facilitated acts of terrorism, most of which did not then recognize Israel’s existence, and none of which regarded attacks by “Palestinians” against Israel’s civilian population as terrorism. Although, due to existential necessity, Israel has become the World’s foremost expert in the field of counterterrorism, the United States (at the direction of President Barack Obama) barred the Jewish State from membership in the Forum and from attending its inaugural meeting in June 2012. Underscoring Israel’s exclusion from the Forum (as well as from the Forum’s raison d’être), the speech given at the inaugural meeting by U.S. delegate Maria Otero (in her capacity as the U.S. State Department’s Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights), entitled “Victims of Terrorism”, conspicuously omitted the Jewish State from its recitation of countries that had been subjected to attack by terrorist groups. Israel’s exclusion from this U.S.-created international forum unfortunately reinforced and amplified the message that, under appropriate circumstances, the U.S. condoned the diplomatic isolation of the Jewish State within the Middle East.

However, in 2020, the U.S. (at the direction of President Donald Trump), with the tacit support of Saudi Arabia, also advanced in the contrary diplomatic direction by actively fostering normalized diplomatic relations between several Arab States (namely, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco) and Israel (which the Jewish State presently lacks with “peace partners” Egypt and Jordan), thereby significantly reducing the Jewish State’s isolation within the Middle East.

Distressingly, despite the warm (i.e., normalized) bilateral diplomatic relations between Israel and those four Arab States, all those States continue to vote in favor of international resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, U.N. General Assembly, U.N. specialized agencies and U.N.-affiliated organizations that demonize, delegitimize and impose double standards upon the Jewish State. This follows the same pattern adopted by the two Arab States (namely, Egypt and Jordan) with which Israel had pre-2020 cold (i.e., unnormalized) bilateral diplomatic relations.

This is also the same pattern adopted by the multitude of other States in the World which maintain warm bilateral diplomatic relations with Israel. All these States have correctly concluded that they can benefit from all that Israel has to offer them on a bilateral level (e.g., targeted aid; disaster relief; trade benefits; the sharing of medical, scientific and technological discoveries; and intelligence sharing and security cooperation), while simultaneously supporting the diplomatic war against the Jewish State in international forums. Of course, Israel is to blame for not linking bilateral relations to international behavior.

The foregoing highlights the fact that Israel suffers from a unique diplomatic dilemma. Despite Israel’s status as a liberal democracy threatened by genocidal enemies, virtually all of its self-described allies are conditional allies, meaning that they support the Jewish State’s right to defend itself provided that it adheres to an ethereal standard of conduct to which they themselves fail to -- and don't even attempt to -- adhere. Consequently, conditional allies of Israel frequently declare that the Jewish State has not only the right, but also the obligation, to defend its population against “Palestinian” terrorists embedded within the “Palestinian” civilian population, provided that Israel does not harm more than a minimal number of “Palestinian” noncombatants or more than a minimal amount of “Palestinian” civilian infrastructure -- despite the fact that the Laws of War permit Israel, in the process of defending its population, to unintentionally harm a large number of noncombatants and a large amount of civilian infrastructure if such collateral damage is necessary to achieve significant military objectives).

Furthermore, virtually all of Israel's conditional allies are also allies of the P.L.O. (i.e., dual allies). These dual allies support the creation of a totalitarian, antisemitic, violent P.L.O.-controlled State in Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, while concomitantly criticizing -- and sometimes condemning -- Israel for its opposition to the creation of that 22^nd Arab State.

In contrast to the conditional allies of Israel, all of the allies of the P.L.O. (including dual allies) are unconditional allies, meaning that they continue to irrevocably support the P.L.O.’s aspirations (while ignoring that the complete fulfilment of those aspirations require the destruction of Israel) in all international forums and bilateral diplomatic communications with Israel, regardless of the frequency or severity of the atrocities perpetuated by "Palestinian" terrorist organizations (as well as by legions of unaffiliated "Palestinians") against Israel in pursuance of those aspirations.

Consequently, to the P.L.O.’s advantage and to Israel’s disadvantage, all of these dual allies are both unconditional allies of the P.L.O. and conditional allies of Israel. This means that Israel is often faced with a stark binary choice, which is either to:

(a) vanquish its genocidal enemies, thereby angering the international community; or

(b) curry (short-term) favor with the international community by making suicidal concessions to those genocidal enemies.

Due to the consistent diplomatic support that the international community has extended to Israel’s enemies, the Jewish State cannot do both. For this reason, Israel cannot defeat its enemies without angering the international community -- which has chosen to prioritize the survival of the Jewish State’s enemies over the survival of the Jewish State.

The Hebrew Bible presciently warned the Jewish people about the folly of relying upon the purported beneficence of the international community, to wit:

“It is better to take refuge in HaShem than to rely upon a human being. It is better to take refuge in HaShem than to rely upon princes.”

(Psalms 118:8-9); and

“Do not rely upon princes -- in a human being, in whom there will not be Salvation [for you].”

(Psalms 146:3).

For example, the invasion of Israel proper by thousands of “Palestinians” on October 7, 2023 and their concomitant perpetration of horrific atrocities actually prompted the United States (at the direction of President Joseph Biden) as well as other conditional allies of Israel, such as Britain and France, to increase rather than decrease their demands that Israel permit the creation of that 22^nd Arab State -- despite the fact that:

(1) 75.00% of “Palestinians” residing in Gaza and the “West Bank” supported that invasion

(per the November 2023 poll conducted by Arab World for Research and Development); and

(2) 88.60% of resident “Palestinians” lauded the role played by the Hamas strike force, known as the “Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades”, in that invasion

(per the November 2023 poll conducted by Arab World for Research and Development); and

(3) 72.00% of resident “Palestinians” labeled that invasion as a “correct decision” -- even as 89.00% of them denied that Hamas and its accomplices committed any war crimes during that invasion

(per the December 2023 poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research); and

(4) 74.70% of resident “Palestinians” supported the establishment of a “Palestinian” State in place of Israel

(per the November 2023 poll conducted by Arab World for Research and Development); and

(5) 51.00% of resident “Palestinians” believed that such a genocidal objective is achievable

(per the June 2023 poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research).

However, in light of the indisputable fact that Hamas and its accomplices (e.g., Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigade) have a long history of murdering Jewish civilians (including elderly persons and infants), and in light of the indisputable fact that many of the October 7 terrorists filmed their atrocities and uploaded that voluminous video evidence to the Internet, how were 89% of the “Palestinians” residing in Gaza and the “West Bank” able to deny that Hamas and its accomplices committed war crimes during their invasion of Israel proper? The answer is that “Palestinians” who support Hamas and its accomplices do not perceive any Israeli Jew, who is not presently serving in the Israeli army, as an authentic civilian, but rather as a retired soldier (who is subject to potential reactivation) or as a future soldier -- and, in their view, the summary execution (whether or not accompanied by brutalities) of a retired or future Israeli soldier is not a war crime.

Furthermore, as of February 2024, the United States, Britain, and France (being both conditional allies of Israel and unconditional allies of the P.L.O.) threatened that they might, at the appropriate time, unilaterally recognize the P.L.O. as being the “State of Palestine” (despite the P.L.O.’s lack of the statehood indicia pursuant to the “Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States” of December 26, 1933) if Israel continued to oppose their collective demand for the creation of that 22^nd Arab State.

Moreover, in May 2024, three States less friendly to Israel -- Norway, Spain, and Ireland -- simultaneously announced their unconditional recognition of (nonexistent) P.L.O. statehood in order to pressure Israel to likewise recognize such statehood. Their unconditional recognition of (nonexistent) P.L.O. statehood was shortly followed by that of Slovenia and Armenia. Although their declared justification for that recognition was to reinvigorate the (nonexistent) “peace process” between Israel and the P.L.O., none of them was able to explain how the unconditionality of their recognition would cause the P.L.O. to abandon its genocidal objectives, and thereby incentivize Israel to permanently cede a portion of the Land of Israel to that terrorist organization.

Furthermore, if their declared justification had any merit, then these same States would have long ago recognized the (self-evident) statehood of Taiwan in order to reinvigorate the “peace process” between China and that island State.

These demands, threats, and faits accomplis were being issued by Israel’s self-described allies despite the fact that the issuance thereof so soon after the invasion and concomitant atrocities of October 7, 2023 was being viewed by the “Palestinians”, the vast majority of whom supported that invasion and concomitant barbarities, as a diplomatic reward therefor.

In light of the fact that Gaza has been a hostile de facto “Palestinian” State (initially governed by the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority, and subsequently governed by Hamas) since Israel’s full withdrawal therefrom in August 2005, it is bizarre that those allies would view the more-expansive establishment of a hostile de jure “Palestinian” State (also to be ruled by the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority) as the logical outcome of Israel’s defensive war against the “Palestinian” aggression of October 7, 2023. Instead, it should have been obvious to those allies that such “Palestinian” aggression was the logical outcome of the earlier establishment of that hostile de facto “Palestinian” State in August 2005. This is because the “Palestinian” leadership (whether Hamas or the P.L.O.) has always been revanchist and irredentist, consequently viewing any territory acquired from the Jewish State (e.g., Gaza and/or portions of the “West Bank”) as a beachhead for the subsequent conquest of the remaining territory that such leadership claims as its patrimony (i.e., all of Israel proper).

Alternatively stated, in light of the revanchist and irredentist ideologies motivating the “Palestinian” leadership, it is bizarre that Israel’s allies would be unable to comprehend that the establishment of a larger de jure “Palestinian” State in Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem would inevitably result in a redux of the very same aggression that had previously emanated from the earlier establishment of a much smaller de facto “Palestinian” State in Gaza.

Disconcertingly, during any hostilities between the “Palestinians” and Israel, any accusations by the former are invariably treated as true unless and until the latter can provide overwhelming evidence disputing such accusations, while any accusations by the latter are invariably treated as unproven unless and until the latter can provide overwhelming evidence supporting such accusations. This is disparate treatment occurs, because the entire U.N. system, many member States, international “human rights” organizations, and virtually all international media outlets view the War against Israel through the ideological lens of the “Oppressor” versus the “Oppressed”, with the Jewish State being assigned the role of the “Oppressor” and the genocidal “Palestinian” terrorist organizations (and their majoritarian “Palestinian” supporters) being assigned the role of the “Oppressed”. This repugnant paradigm requires that -- as soon as an accusation is made -- the “Oppressed” must be believed until proven wrong, while the “Oppressor” must be disbelieved until proven right. Consequently, until contrary evidence can be accumulated, the “Palestinians” are treated as if they can do no Wrong, while the Jewish State is treated as if it can do no Right.

For example, on October 17, 2023, during the war initiated by Hamas (with assistance from Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority-controlled al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigade, the P.L.O.’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and unaffiliated Gazans) against Israel on October 7, 2023, Hamas claimed that Israel intentionally bombed and completely destroyed al-Ahli Arab Hospital (also known as al-Ahli Anglican Episcopal Hospital) in Gaza City, Gaza, in the process killing approximately 500 civilians. This claim was immediately accepted -- in its entirety -- as true by the U.N. system, many member States, regional organizations, international “human rights” organizations, and virtually all international media outlets until Israel was able to provide overwhelming evidence that an Islamic Jihad rocket (rather than an Israeli bomb) had landed on the adjacent parking lot (rather than on the hospital building), in the process killing approximately 100 civilians (rather than 500 civilians). Alternatively stated, despite initial international skepticism that Israel had neither destroyed al-Ahli Arab Hospital nor massacred hundreds of civilians who were sheltering there, every detail of the foregoing Hamas accusation against Israel was eventually proven false.

Conversely, on November 19, 2023, Israel claimed that it had discovered stored munitions inside as well as a network of tunnels underneath al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Gaza, thereby indicating that the aboveground and underground portions of the hospital complex served as a military facility for Hamas personnel. However, that claim was immediately treated as fanciful by the international community until Israel was able to provide aboveground and underground tours of the hospital complex to representatives of foreign governments and international media outlets. Alternatively stated, despite initial international skepticism that al-Shifa hospital doubled as a military facility utilized by Hamas, every detail of the foregoing Israeli accusation against Hamas was eventually proven true. Moreover, the use of this hospital complex as a military facility was further proven beyond doubt when Israel’s army reentered the complex on March 17, 2024, and thereafter killed almost 200 armed terrorists, and arrested approximately 500 more.

Another blood libel was asserted against Israel on March 24, 2024, when the Qatar-based and government-owned Al Jazeera television network interviewed a Gazan woman, Jamila Al-Hessi, who claimed to have witnessed that, when Israeli soldiers were inside al-Shifa Hospital, they “raped women, kidnapped women, executed women, and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them”. Curiously, on the very next day, Al Jazeera reporter and former director-general Yasser Abu-Hilalah retracted the story via the following statement published on the social media platform “X” (formerly known as “Twitter”), to wit:

“It was revealed through Hamas investigations that the story of the rape of women in Al-Shifa Hospital was fabricated… The woman who spoke about rape justified her exaggeration and incorrect talk by saying that the goal was to arouse the [Arab] nation’s fervor and brotherhood.”

Why would Hamas, which excels at manufacturing blood libels against the Jewish State, rescue the latter from one? The answer is that it was forced to do so by the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Hamas conjured the mass rape story and used its “witness” to purvey the story to Al Jazeera’s worldwide Muslim audience, with the objective of demonizing Israel and creating such an uncontrollable anger among the Arab populations of Israel proper and Judea & Samaria as well as nearby States (primarily Egypt and Jordan) that those populations would be emotionally compelled to join Gaza’s War against Israel. Although the story did cause protests and riots in Egypt and Jordan (as well as throughout the Muslim world), those disturbances were quickly suppressed. However, the story also had the unintended consequence of terrifying much of Gaza’s population, which -- believing that its women were at risk of being raped by Israeli soldiers -- fled southward towards the Egyptian border. As it was not in Hamas’ interest to increase the Gazan population’s fear of Israel or to cause any further depopulation of northern Gaza and central Gaza, Hamas requested that Al Jazeera publicly retract the story based upon the “results” of a nonexistent “investigation” conducted by Hamas.

That a “Palestinian” terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s annihilation is so readily believed, and that an Israel defending itself against a terrorist onslaught is so readily disbelieved (even by many of Israel’s self-described allies) demonstrates the extent to which the international community seeks (or fails to oppose efforts) to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State.

Perhaps no issue is more internationally controversial than the status of Jerusalem. From the time of its capture by King David circa 1010 BCE until its partial liberation by the State of Israel in 1948, the City has exclusively been the capital city of the Jewish people and their serial sovereign political entities, to wit:

(1) the united kingdom of Israel (circa 1043 BCE to circa 930 BCE), the remnant kingdom of Judah (circa 930 BCE to 586 BCE),

(2) the successor kingdom of Judea (140 BCE to 63 BCE),

(3) the resurrected kingdom of Judea (40 BCE to 37 BCE), and

(4) the State of Israel (1948 to the present time).

Although serial Islamic Empires did occupy Jerusalem from the 7^th Century to the 20^th Century (except during the early Crusader period), and although Jordan subsequently occupied the eastern portion of the City from 1948 to 1967, none of these Empires or Jordan ever declared the City (or any portion thereof) to be the capital city of any territory under their control. Moreover, since there has never been a sovereign political entity known as “Palestine” in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem was never -- and could never have been -- the capital city of this imaginary “Palestine”.

Yet, despite the longstanding historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem, for the first 69 years of its modern existence, Israel has been the only State in the World whose capital city -- Jerusalem -- was not recognized by any other State (including the United States) as actually being its capital city. Rather, during this period, the entire international community has preferred to treat Tel Aviv as if it were Israel’s capital city. This nonrecognition of a nation’s capital is unprecedented in the annals of international diplomacy. However, lest one think that this had been the case merely because the international community does not recognize the legality of Israel’s June 1967 reacquisition of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, it should be recalled that, since its establishment in May 1948, present-day Israel’s territory has always included the western portion of Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the entire international community refused from 1948 until 2017 to recognize even the western portion of Jerusalem as being Israel’s capital city.

In fact, prior to the Six Day War of 1967, while refusing to place any diplomatic missions to Israel (whether denominated as embassies or Consulates) in the western portion of Jerusalem (because that area was allocated by the defunct Palestine Partition Plan of 1947 to the U.N.’s “Special International Regime”), the United States and nine other States (i.e., Belgium, Greece, Turkey, France, Britain, Vatican City, Italy, Spain and Sweden) hypocritically discerned no legal impediment to maintaining Consulates to Jordan in the eastern portion of Jerusalem (even though that area was also allocated by the defunct Palestine Partition Plan of 1947 to the U.N.’s “Special International Regime”).

Even after the Six Day War of 1967 and Israel’s consequent reunification of Jerusalem, these same States, which had previously placed their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv, continued to maintain Consulates in the eastern portion of Jerusalem -- initially to the Arab population of the “West Bank” and Gaza, and subsequently to the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the Palestinian Authority. Of all the States in the World, only Israel has been subjected to the indignity of involuntarily hosting diplomatic missions on its territory to a foreign entity -- even more egregious, a foreign entity which is dedicated to its destruction.

This disparate diplomatic treatment was the result of a perverse international consensus (reinforced by every component of the U.N. system) that the legal status of western Jerusalem (under Israeli possession since 1948) remains unresolved, while the legal status of eastern Jerusalem (under Israeli possession since 1967) has been resolved -- in favor of the P.L.O.

Alternatively stated, unless and until Israel concedes its sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem to the P.L.O., the international community will not recognize Israeli sovereignty over western Jerusalem.

Astonishingly, Israel has passively cooperated with this international conspiracy against it by not expelling from Jerusalem all extant diplomatic missions to the P.L.O. Israel’s failure to remove (or, in the future, to prevent the establishment or reestablishment) of diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to the P.L.O. is a self-inflicted diplomatic wound that severely undermines the Jewish State’s exclusive sovereignty over the entirety of Jerusalem, as it signals to the World that a portion of Jerusalem might actually belong to the P.L.O.

In furtherance of the foregoing international consensus on Jerusalem, the official website of the 2012 Olympic Games, created by the International Olympic Committee, initially listed Jerusalem as being the capital city of a nonexistent “Palestine”; and it listed no capital city for Israel. However, after a protest from Israel about this absurdity, the I.O.C. website was subsequently “corrected” to list no capital city for either “Palestine” or Israel, thereby perpetuating the initial absurdity.

However, the international community’s monolithic policy on Jerusalem was breached in 2017. For, in April 2017, Russia recognized “West Jerusalem” (albeit a fictitious city) as the capital city of Israel; and, in December 2017, the United States (at the direction of President Donald Trump) recognized “Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel (without bisecting the City or otherwise specifying the City’s boundaries within Israel) and stated its intention to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to close its Jerusalem Consulate to the P.L.O. These U.S. declarations (but, curiously, not the earlier Russian declaration) elicited strident condemnations from the European Union, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, numerous individual States and Arab members of Israel’s parliament; and it triggered rioting among the Arab population of Israel proper, as well as an escalation in the normative terrorism emanating from the “West Bank” and Gaza.

These U.S. declarations also triggered a U.N. Security Council draft resolution (i.e., P.L.O.-initiated, Egyptian-sponsored draft resolution no. S/2017/1060 of December 18, 2017, which was vetoed by the United States after it had garnered 14 votes – out of total of 15 votes -- in its favor) and a subsequent identical U.N. General Assembly resolution (i.e., P.L.O.-initiated, multi-State-sponsored Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/19 of December 21, 2017, which was adopted by the affirmative vote of an overwhelming majority of U.N. member States), which states, by implication, that the U.S. declarations regarding Jerusalem “… have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded …” and which “calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem …” (U.N. Security Council draft resolution no. S/2017/1060, operative paragraph 1; and U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/19, operative paragraph 1).

Alternatively stated, according to the United Nations, diplomatic missions to the P.L.O. in Jerusalem are internationally acceptable, but diplomatic missions to Israel in Jerusalem are internationally unacceptable.

The risible rationale for these anti-U.S. and anti-Israel missives was that the U.S. declarations on Jerusalem had prejudged the outcome of the peace process and had consequently damaged the prospects for peace, because sovereignty over Jerusalem was meant to be a final status issue, to be resolved exclusively in future negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the “State of Palestine”, to wit: “Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,” (U.N. Security Council draft resolution no. S/2017/1060, preambular paragraph 5; and U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/19, preambular paragraph 5). However, that noncredible rationale merely exposed the ongoing Antisemitism and hypocrisy that is rife throughout the U.N. system, which -- for many decades -- has itself prejudged the outcome of the farcical “peace process” and consequently damaged the prospects for peace by incessantly describing either “Jerusalem” or a fictitious city labeled “East Jerusalem” as being under Occupation by Israel and/or as belonging to the “Palestinians”.

For example, the following U.N. resolutions each contain language that prejudges the outcome of the “peace process”, including the final status of Jerusalem (or, alternatively, “East Jerusalem”):

(a) the first operative paragraph of U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 476 of June 30, 1980, to wit:

“1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”

-- it is noteworthy that, as recently as 1980, the U.N. was identifying Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem as “Arab” territory rather than as “Palestinian” territory, as the latter fake ethnic designation had not yet become permanently embedded in U.N. nomenclature; and

(b) the tenth preambular paragraph of U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. A/RES/ES-10/14 of December 8, 2003, to wit:

“Welcoming the convening of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, …”; and

(c) the second operative paragraph of U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 2334 of December 23, 2016, to wit:

“Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, ...”.

Predictably, both Turkey and Iran immediately thereafter also prejudged the outcome of the “peace process” and consequently damaged the prospects for peace by declaring that they recognize “Jerusalem” (i.e., including the western portion of the City) as the capital of the fictitious “State of Palestine” -- without triggering any adverse reaction from the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. General Assembly, the European Union or any other component of the international community.

Consequently, the entire U.N. system, virtually all other international organizations and the vast majority of States continue to deny that any portion of Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel; and they, instead, continue to treat Tel Aviv as if it were Israel’s capital city. Moreover, many of these States and international organizations exacerbate the forgoing absurdity by recognizing the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and sometimes all of Jerusalem) as the capital city of a nonexistent “State of Palestine”.

Hypocritically, virtually all components of the international community claim that their continued nonrecognition of even the western portion of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city is mandated by Section A (entitled “Special Regime”) of Part III (entitled “Jerusalem”) of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 1947 (commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”), which Resolution called for Jerusalem and (per Part III, Section B of the Resolution) its environs (including Bethlehem) to be established as a “corpus separatum” (literal meaning: “separated body”) that would be administered as a “Special International Regime” by the United Nations through its Trusteeship Council. The purpose of placing the Jerusalem region under the governance of the United Nations was to create a regime of international protection for the holy sites thereof (especially those of significance to Christianity, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Via Dolorosa, Calvary aka Golgotha, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Garden Tomb, and the Church of the Nativity).

However, it is noteworthy that:

(a) the western portion of Jerusalem contains no Christian or Muslim holy sites;

(b) the Resolution itself became inoperable once the “Palestinian” Arab leadership and the larger Arab World immediately rejected it by declaration and conduct;

(c) no component of the U.N. system ever demanded that Part III of the Resolution be implemented during Jordan’s 19-year occupation of Bethlehem and the eastern portion of Jerusalem; and

(d) within a few decades after Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, virtually all components of the international community began to declare that Bethlehem and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and sometimes all of Jerusalem) belonged to the “Palestinian” Arabs (and, more recently, to the “State of Palestine”) rather than to the “corpus separatum” established in Part III of the Resolution.

Furthermore, per Section D (entitled “Duration of the Special Regime”) of Part III of the Resolution, the “Special International Regime” to be created for the governance of the Jerusalem region was intended as a temporary measure that would have existed for only 10 years (subject to earlier termination by the U.N.’s Trusteeship Council), commencing at the latest on October 1, 1948 and terminating at the latest on September 30, 1958, after which the region’s status as a “corpus separatum” would be subject to a reexamination by the Trusteeship Council and a referendum by its resident population. With no reexamination or referendum having occurred on or after September 30, 1958, the “Special International Regime” expired long ago; and, consequently, it is absurd for anyone to now claim that Part III of the Resolution continues to have any effect on the legal status of Jerusalem.

Moreover, and most importantly, it is worth reiterating that the “Palestine Partition Plan” -- like all U.N. General Assembly resolutions -- was directory rather than mandatory, meaning that it was a nonbinding recommendation made by the international community. Consequently, despite the claims of its present-day advocates -- the Resolution did not create, and did not attempt to create, international law.

As a last resort, the international community asserts that the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem violates the Vienna Convention (formally entitled the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961”), based upon the claim that the Convention bars any country from installing an Embassy in another country except upon the internationally-recognized territory of the latter country. However, nowhere in the Convention does any such provision exist. On the contrary, the Vienna Convention states:

The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way.

(Vienna Convention, Article 21, Paragraph 1).

According to Israel's laws, the western portion of Jerusalem has been within the boundaries of the State since May 1948 and the remainder of Jerusalem has been within the boundaries of the State since June 1967. So, the U.S. Embassy's presence in Jerusalem does not violate the Vienna Convention.

In summary, without any support in international law, virtually all components of the international community recognize a nonexistent Arab sovereignty over the eastern portion of Jerusalem, while they simultaneously refuse to recognize the extant Jewish sovereignty over even the western portion of that City.

In 2022, the United States (at the direction of President Joseph Biden) retreated from its unambiguous recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem by upgrading the “Palestinian Affairs Unit” of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem to the “U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs”. Moreover, this diplomatic mission is hosted in a different building in Jerusalem than is the U.S. Embassy, and it is not subordinate -- and does not report -- to the U.S. Ambassador. Being unable to formally reestablish the Jerusalem Consulate to the P.L.O. due to lack of permission from Israel, the U.S. created its functional equivalent by recreating the diplomatic status quo that existed before the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and the concomitant closure of its Jerusalem Consulate to the P.L.O. The maintenance of an independent U.S. diplomatic mission to the P.L.O. in Jerusalem (rather than in the Palestinian Authority’s de facto capital city Ramallah) constitutes a diplomatic assault against Israel’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; and, tellingly, the U.S. has not duplicated it elsewhere. For example, although the Basque people have long sought independence from Spain and France, there is no “Basque Affairs Unit” of the U.S. Embassy in Madrid or of the U.S. Embassy in Paris -- let alone an independent “U.S. Office of Basque Affairs” in either State -- because the U.S. would never disrespect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of either State.

Two final items of disinformation concerning Jerusalem require discussion, namely, Jerusalem’s purported holiness to Islam and the “Status Quo” arrangement for that city’s Temple Mount, which is in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The holiest site in Jerusalem is the Temple Mount, which is the Jewish people’s holiest site in their holiest city. Although it has been ritually reiterated ad nauseum by the international community that Jerusalem, due to its Temple Mount, is the third holiest city for Muslims after Mecca and Medina (both of which cities are in present-day Saudi Arabia), that assertion is true only for Sunni Muslims. In contrast, for Shiite Muslims, the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina is Najaf (which city is in present-day Iraq), while, for Shiite Muslims, Jerusalem is not holy at all. Even for Sunni Muslims, the holiness of Jerusalem is based upon the historical fact that the city hosted the Jewish people’s serial Temples in biblical times. In fact, the only reason that the 7^th Century Arab conquerors of the Land of Israel erected their al-Aksa Mosque atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount was to publicly demonstrate that Islam had triumphed over Judaism and the Jewish people. Alternatively stated, but for the former existence of the biblical Temples on the Temple Mount, no mosque would have been erected on that particular site.

On June 17, 1967, only one week after Israel reacquired the eastern portion of Jerusalem -- including the Old City together with its Temple Mount -- in the Six Day War, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan issued a directive -- without either Cabinet approval or parliamentary approval -- with respect to the Mount, which directive subsequently became known as the “Status Quo”. This directive, inter alia:

(1) allowed the Jordanian religious authorities to continue their prewar administrative management of the Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount (i.e., al-Aksa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock), on condition that these religious authorities prevented acts of anti-Jewish incitement and anti-Jewish violence on the Mount, which Jordanian management was subject to the general oversight by and the presence of Israeli security forces on the Mount;

(2) barred Jews (and other non-Muslims) from demonstrably praying anywhere on the Temple Mount;

(3) granted Jews (and other non-Muslims) unlimited visitation rights to the Temple Mount, including the right to visit the Muslim shrines thereon, and provided three access points to the Mount for Jews (and other non-Muslims) from the 12 available access points thereto;

(4) required that all structural changes to the Temple Mount undertaken by the Jordanian religious authorities be supervised by officials of the Jerusalem building department and the Israel Antiquities Authority; and

(5) removed from the Temple Mount all Israeli flags placed there by the victorious Israeli army, and banned the flying of any flags thereon.

Since then, in response to:

(a) frequent anti-Jewish incitement by Muslim preachers on the Temple Mount, as well as Arab rioting and frequent Arab threats to riot on the Mount (which rioting typically includes assaulting Jews visiting the Mount and/or throwing large rocks, iron bars, firebombs and other projectiles onto Jews praying at the Western Wall below) without any interference from the Jordanian religious authorities in rank violation of the “Status Quo”, as well rioting and threatening to riot elsewhere in the Land of Israel, all of which is incited and praised by Jordan, the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority and other terrorist organizations, and all of which is initiated in order to prevent Jews from exercising their “Status Quo” visitation rights on the Mount, and

(b) persistent international demands, led by Jordan and the P.L.O., that Israel terminate Jewish visitation rights there, as such visitation rights are blamed for “provoking” Arab violence on the Mount,

Israel has restricted the days (e.g., no visitation during the final 10 days of the Muslim month of Ramadan) and hours (e.g., no visitation during daily Muslim prayer hours) of Jewish (and other non-Muslim) visitation as well the number of Jews (as well as other non-Muslims) permitted to enter the Mount during any authorized time of visitation; and Israel has, for extended periods, completely barred Jewish (and other non-Muslim) access thereto (e.g., from 2000 to 2003, as a myopic Israeli response to the intense Arab terrorism against Jews throughout the Land of Israel during those years).

Moreover, Israel has allowed the Jordanian religious authorities, in collaboration with the P.L.O.’s religious authorities, to completely bar Jews (and other non-Muslims) from entering any of the Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount.

Further responding to Arab violence and threats of violence with appeasement, Israel has also restricted Jews (and other non-Muslims) to a single access point that can only be reached via a decaying wooden bridge situated on the Western Wall plaza that Israel (in response to Jordanian warnings of serious harm to diplomatic relations) has agreed not to replace without Jordan’s consent, despite the fact that the “Status Quo” limited Jordan’s role to administrative management of the Muslim shrines situated on the Temple Mount (which shrines are nowhere near the bridge) and the fact that the bridge itself is entirely situated outside of the Mount. However, Jordan was able to successfully demand (with international diplomatic support) that Israel not replace that bridge without its consent, firstly via conflating the relatively small al-Aksa Mosque with the entire Temple Mount plaza (which comprises 36 acres) by means of redenominating the entire public plaza as “al-Aksa Mosque Compound” (which conflation has received international diplomatic support throughout the U.N. system, which -- in its English-language documents -- habitually refers to the Temple Mount as “al-Aksa Mosque Compound” or, alternatively, as “al-Aksa Mosque/al-Haram al-Sharif”), and secondly via asserting that the Western Wall and the Western Wall plaza are also part of “al-Aksa Mosque Compound” (due to the Islamic myth that the founder of Islam, Mohammed ibn Abdullah, was transported to that mosque -- despite the fact that it did not exist during Mohammed’s lifetime -- on a winged horse named al-Burak that he tethered to the Western Wall while he visited famous personalities in Heaven). Due to the overt opposition by Jordan and the P.L.O. to Jewish visitation rights on the Temple Mount, Jordan has predictably refused to approve any replacement of that bridge, as it and the P.L.O. reasonably believe that, once the bridge collapses or for safety reasons is demolished by Israel, Jewish (and other non-Muslim) visitation to the Mount will permanently cease.

Further responding to Arab violence and threats of violence with appeasement, Israel has also allowed the Jordanian religious authorities, in collaboration with the P.L.O.’s religious authorities, to embark upon huge construction projects on the Temple Mount (resulting in the creation of three additional mosques, both underground and aboveground), without being supervised by officials of the Jerusalem building department or the Israel Antiquities Authority, thereby resulting in significant and irreparable damage to ancient Jewish artifacts situated under the surface of the Mount.

Moreover, while no Israeli flags are ever flown on the Temple Mount, P.L.O. flags, Hamas flags and Turkish flags are frequently hoisted with little interference from Israeli security forces stationed on the Mount.

Consequently, the “Status Quo” on the Temple Mount has been so eroded in favor of Jordan and the P.L.O. that the “Status Quo” barely continues to exist, except with respect to the ban on demonstrable Jewish prayer.

Although, whenever Israeli security forces respond to Arabs attacks on Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount or on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall, all components of the international community -- led by Jordan and the P.L.O. -- predictably demand that Israel abide by the “Status Quo” on the Mount, this demand is highly deceptive. For, they are not demanding that Israel restore the original “Status Quo” (which, in their view, provided too many rights to the Jewish people), but rather that Israel complete the destruction of the original “Status Quo” by completely barring Jewish visitation to the Temple Mount and by removing all Israeli security forces from the Mount, thereby accepting the imposition of a new “Status Quo” which abrogates all Jewish rights -- including Israeli sovereignty -- with respect to the Mount.

In light of the fact that Jordan and the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority have repeatedly violated the original “Status Quo” directive (while outrageously claiming that Israel is somehow violating that “Status Quo” by not accepting and abiding by a new arrangement which they falsely label as the “Status Quo”), Israel’s continued adherence to the remnant “Status Quo” directive makes little sense.

Moreover, with respect to Jewish visitation rights to and prayer rights on the Temple Mount, both the new “Status Quo” that the World now seeks to impose upon Israel and the original “Status Quo” that Israel imposed upon itself in 1967 are actually repudiated and superseded by the provisions of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty.

Although Article 3 of the Treaty placed all of Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount) within Israel, and although Article 2 of the Treaty requires Jordan to respect Israel’s sovereignty over its Treaty-recognized territory, the Treaty permitted Jordan to continue its pre-treaty administrative management of the Muslim shrines in Jerusalem, all of which are located on the Temple Mount, subject to several caveats, to wit:

Article 9. Places of Historical and Religious Significance and Interfaith Relations

1. Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.

2. In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration [of August 5, 1994, recorded as U.N. Security Council document number S/1994/939 and U.N. General Assembly document number A/49/300], Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.

3. The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

(Article 9 of the “Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, dated October 26, 1994”)

It is noteworthy that, per Article 9 of the Treaty, Jordan’s right to continue its “present special role” on the Temple Mount was coupled with an obligation to respect the rights of everyone (which would include, of course, Jews) to freely ascend to and freely pray at religious shrines (which would include, of course, the Temple Mount). Consequently, the Treaty refutes the claim that, were Israel to permit Jews to unconditionally visit and unconditionally pray on the Temple Mount, Israel would be interfering with Jordan’s “special role” on the Mount or would otherwise be in breach of the Treaty. Contrariwise, Jordan’s refusal to respect and to facilitate the rights of Jews (and other non-Muslims) to ascend to and pray at the Temple Mount is a violation of the Treaty.

Furthermore, Jordan (with worldwide diplomatic support, including that of the of United States) publicly declares that it is the “Custodian” (i.e., legal guardian) of the Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount. Moreover, by publicly conflating the relatively small al-Aksa Mosque with the entire 36-acre Temple Mount plaza, Jordan (again with worldwide diplomatic support, including numerous U.N. system resolutions) thereby implies that Israel has ceded its sovereignty over the Mount to Jordan. Yet, it is noteworthy that nowhere in Article 9 of (or elsewhere in) the Treaty does it ever refer to Jordan as being the “Custodian” of any site or structure located within Israel -- let alone the Temple Mount or the Muslim shrines located thereon. Instead, the Treaty refers only to Israel’s “respect” for Jordan’s “special role” in those shrines, which is limited to the administrative management thereof. To state the obvious, language matters -- especially the negotiated language employed in a peace treaty. Consequently, although the Treaty recognizes Jordan's “special role” in managing those shrines, it does not award to Jordan the independent legal status of “Custodian” of those shrines or of the Temple Mount itself.

The foregoing raises an interesting question, to wit: Why do so many States and international organizations hypocritically insist that maintaining the status quo in the “West Bank” is absolutely unsustainable, while simultaneously insisting that maintaining the status quo on the Temple Mount is absolutely necessary? Alternatively stated: Why is the “West Bank” status quo so evil, while the Temple Mount status quo is so virtuous? The answer is quite simple. The “West Bank” status quo favors the Jewish State and implements (if only partially) the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people to the entire Land of Israel; so, the World (which supports the bogus claim of the P.L.O. to Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem) consequently views this status quo as Bad. Contrariwise, the Temple Mount status quo (especially the new “Status Quo” that the World seeks to impose upon the Jewish people) favors the bogus claim of the P.L.O. that the Jewish people have no historical or legal claim to Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount; so, the World consequently views this status quo as Good.

Lastly, in order to justify its perverse determination that Israel is a rogue State, the international community has acquired the insidious habit of equating binding U.N. Security Council resolutions issued pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter directed against evil and aggressive dictatorships (such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Stalinist North Korea and Islamo-fascist Iran) with nonbinding U.N. resolutions issued pursuant to Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter directed against the terror-targeted Jewish State. When Israel ignores malevolent U.N. Security Council resolutions issued pursuant to Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter and malevolent U.N. General Assembly resolutions, it does not thereby violate those resolutions, as it is legally impossible for a State to violate that which is not a legal imposition upon that State. Rather, when Israel ignores those resolutions, it is merely rejecting the non-binding recommendations set forth therein. However, even a U.N. Security Council resolution issued pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter would not legally bind Israel if it were to repudiate or diminish the rights of the Jewish people enshrined in the Mandate for Palestine (as recognized by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter), as such a resolution would itself be in violation of international law.

Remarkably, the international community’s strident isolation of Israel was foretold by the Gentile prophet Balaam who -- gazing upon the Hebrew tribes as they advanced towards the biblical Land of Israel -- declared:

“‘For, from its origins I see it rock-like, and from hills do I see it; behold! -- it is a people that [physically] shall dwell in solitude, and that [spiritually] shall not be reckoned among the nations.’”

(Numbers 23:9)

Clearly, Israel has no obligation to honor the malevolent Will of the international community as expressed through the U.N., especially when such hostile sentiment conflicts with the U.N.'s own Charter and with international law as expressed through the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Furthermore, Israel’s claim, under international law, to its ancestral lands is not dependent for its validity on international public opinion – whether that opinion is favorable or unfavorable to Israel’s claim. If it were otherwise, then there is no international law -- only international public opinion. However, due to the fact that (absent the agreement of the Jewish State) no subsequent instrument of international law will ever possess the authority to erase the rights obtained by the Jewish people under the Mandate for Palestine and the legal doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris, the vast majority of States, international organizations and components of the U.N. system either ignore or pervert international law in an attempt to undermine these rights.

For example, in an attempt to denigrate the continuing international legal authority of the Mandate for Palestine, the Jewish State's adversaries often claim that the Mandate was -- and consequently the present-day State of Israel is -- the product of post-World War I geopolitical manipulations by a small cartel of colonialist European Powers, as a consequence of which both the Mandate and the Jewish State which emerged from the Mandate are illegitimate. Of course, such a claim is not an assault merely upon the Jewish people's collective rights of settlement and self-determination in Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights, but rather upon the Jewish people's collective rights of settlement and self-determination in any portion, however miniscule, of former Mandatory Palestine. Putting aside the fact that the creation of the present-day State of Israel was promoted not only by the post-World War I League of Nations, but also by the post-World War II United Nations (thereby rendering Israel the only nation in the World whose prospective emergence received the imprimatur of both international organizations), it must be remembered that all of the present-day Arab States are products of the very same historical process -- namely, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire wrought by World War I -- which resulted in the establishment of the Jewish State. In particular, the State of Israel and the present-day Arab States of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan all emerged from the very same system of international mandates that was created by the League of Nations in the immediate aftermath of World War I (e.g., Iraq was created via the Mandate for Mesopotamia in 1932; Lebanon and Syria were created via the Mandate for Syria, respectively, in 1943 and 1946; and Jordan, then known as Transjordan, was created via the Mandate for Palestine in 1946). Moreover, in the post-World War I non-sovereign Middle East, containing a vast geographic area populated by both Jews and Arabs, it can hardly be deemed legitimate for these Powers to have allocated 99.93%, (representing 38,212,850 square kilometers = 14,753,981 square miles) of that vast geographic area exclusively to the Arab people (despite the presence of Jewish population centers among them) for the eventual creation of 21 sovereign Arab States therein, and, yet, illegitimate for these very same Powers to have allocated, per the Mandate for Palestine, only 00.07% (representing 28,150 square kilometers = 10,869 square miles and comprising Israel proper, the “West Bank”, Gaza and the Golan Heights) of that vast geographic area exclusively to the Jewish people (despite the presence of Arab population centers among them) for the eventual creation of one sovereign Jewish State therein. In order to put the foregoing post-World War I territorial allocations into perspective, it is noteworthy that the aggregate land area allocated exclusively to the Arab people in the aftermath of World War I was greater than the combined areas of the United States and Europe, while the eventual land area allocated exclusively to the Jewish people was a little larger than the U.S. State of New Jersey.

And, finally, it must be remembered that League of Nations’ allocation of the non-sovereign territory of western Mandatory Palestine to the Jewish people was no gift. Rather, it constituted a return of stolen property.

Moreover, although the League of Nations, as well as its Mandate for Palestine, was created in 1920 by only 41 nations, this initial group was hardly limited to the colonialist European Powers. In fact, only 39% of the charter members of the League of Nations were even European nations, let alone colonialist European nations. These charter members were: ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHILE, CHINA, COLOMBIA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA (present-day CZECHIA and SLOVAKIA), DENMARK, EL SALVADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERSIA (present-day IRAN), PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SIAM (present-day THAILAND), SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VENEZUELA, and YUGOSLAVIA (present-day SERBIA, KOSOVO, MONTENEGRO, SLOVENIA, CROATIA, NORTH MACEDONIA and BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA). And, by the time that the governing instrument of the Mandate for Palestine was issued in 1922, the following 10 additional nations had become members of the League of Nations: ALBANIA, AUSTRIA, BULGARIA, COSTA RICA, FINLAND, LUXEMBOURG, ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, and HUNGARY. Accordingly, if the criterion of legitimacy is to be the size of membership, then the League of Nations (which comprised 51 member States at the time of its issuance of the governing instrument of the Mandate for Palestine) was every bit an authoritative source of international law as is the United Nations (which comprised 51 member States at the time of its creation). In this context, it is noteworthy that Israel’s adversaries have never questioned the validity of resolutions which are harmful to the Jewish State based upon the inadequate membership size of the issuing organization. For example, United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 194 (III) of December 11, 1948 continues to serve as the foundation for the global demand that the entirety of the hostile “Palestinian” Arab “refugee” population and its multigenerational foreign-born descendants be allowed to inundate Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines, despite the fact that, at the time of the Resolution’s issuance, the U.N. (which presently comprises 193 member States) comprised only 58 member States, and only 35 of those member States voted in favor of the Resolution.

Furthermore, there are many instruments of international law, decades older than the Mandate for Palestine, that continue to be authoritative, despite being promoted by the European colonialist Powers. One example is the Hague Convention of 1907, which codified the Laws of War prior to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Another example is the Convention of Constantinople of 1888, which guaranteed the passage of international maritime traffic through Egypt’s Suez Canal.

Despite all of the foregoing, the argument is often made that demographic dominance trumps both legal and historical rights, meaning that -- despite the international juridical authority of the Mandate for Palestine (which explicitly based itself upon the Jewish people's historical connection to the biblical Land of Israel) -- the “Palestinian” Arabs have nonetheless acquired some form of de facto collective ownership over Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza, because they presently constitute the overwhelming majority of the population of the “West Bank” and Gaza. Since this demographic status was achieved largely due to the successive massacres and expulsions by the “Palestinian” Arabs of the “Palestinian” Jews resident in these areas during the Mandatory period (from 1920 to 1948), and due to the illegal restrictions instituted by Britain against Jewish immigration thereto and against Jewish land purchases therein (from 1939 to 1948), and due to the destruction by Jordan and Egypt -- in the wake of their illegal military occupations of these areas -- of all preexisting Jewish communities therein, thereby rendering these areas Judenrein (from 1948 to 1967), the “Palestinian” Arabs' present demographic dominance therein hardly constitutes a moral imprimatur for their fallacious claim of de facto collective sovereignty thereto.

Furthermore, even had the “Palestinian” Arabs achieved their overall demographic dominance in these areas exclusively by peaceful and legitimate means, they would not thereby have acquired any right of collective sovereignty thereto.

For example, the fact that ethnic Japanese, together with other Asian peoples, have long constituted the dominant population of the non-continental U.S. state of Hawaii does not thereby provide such local Japanese and other Asians with any right of collective sovereignty to that archipelago (despite the fact that the Hawaiian Islands are more than 3,800 kilometers -- approximately 2,400 miles -- from the continental United States); and, consequently, that area will continue to be a lawful part of the United States irrespective of that state's present or future demographic character. Neither the U.N. nor any other international organization has claimed otherwise.

Moreover, the fact that ethnic Armenians have long constituted the dominant population of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan does not thereby provide such local Armenians with any right of collective sovereignty to that region; and, consequently, that region will continue to be a lawful part of Azerbaijan irrespective of that region’s present or future demographic character. Neither the U.N. nor any other international organization has claimed otherwise.

Unsurprisingly, Israel is virtually the only State against which the international community has asserted the Demographic Dominance doctrine.

Hypocritically, there is no international support for using this doctrine to coerce Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkiye to create from their Kurdish-dominated territories a sovereign State of Kurdistan. Nor is there any international support for using this doctrine to coerce Iran into permitting those portions of its territory which are dominated by non-Persian ethnicities (e.g., Kurds, Balochis, Arabs, Turkmen, and Azeris) to become independent States for those respective ethnicities.

Consequently, despite the fact that portions of the Land of Israel are mostly populated by Gentiles, by virtue of international law (as expressed via the Mandate for Palestine, Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, the legal doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris, the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty), exclusive collective sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel will continue to lawfully inhere in the Jewish people irrespective of the present or future demographic characteristics of any portion thereof and despite the fact that, due to demographic and diplomatic considerations, Israel has -- to date -- declined to apply its de jure sovereignty to all portions of the Land of Israel. For, Israel applied its de jure sovereignty to the eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1967 and to the Golan Heights in 1981, but has not yet done so with respect to any portion of Judea, Samaria, or Gaza.

It is noteworthy that the United States (at the direction of President Donald Trump) recognized Israeli sovereignty over both Jerusalem (in December 2017) and the Golan Heights (in March 2019).

Moreover, the U.S. (at the direction of President Donald Trump) has also repudiated the political positions -- masquerading as legal positions -- adopted by virtually all other States in the World that the existence of Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria violate international law (in November 2019). However, the U.S. (at the direction of President Joseph Biden) reversed this position (in February 2024).

The “application of de jure sovereignty” rather than “annexation” is the legally-correct term for any future incorporation of Judea & Samaria (or portions thereof) into Israel, as the term “annexation” refers to one State’s unilateral incorporation of another State’s territory, which is generally (but not always) illegal under international law. Since Judea & Samaria never belonged either to Jordan (from which these lands were reacquired during the 1967 Six Day War) or to the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the “State of Palestine” (which, prior to and during the 1967 Six Day War, never ruled or otherwise possessed these lands or even claimed to exist as a State), their future incorporation into Israel would not be an annexation, but rather an application of de jure sovereignty to territories over which the Jewish people have an exclusive claim of sovereignty via the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, as made binding upon the United Nations per Article 80 of the U.N. Charter.

Although Oslo II (at Chapter 5, Article XXXI, paragraph 7) states that neither Israel nor the P.L.O. will initiate any steps intended to alter the status of Gaza or the “West Bank” pending completion of Oslo I final status negotiations, the P.L.O. has serially violated this provision by acceding to numerous international treaties as the “State of Palestine”, by joining numerous international organizations as the “State of Palestine”, by obtaining recognition from the United Nations as the “Non-Member Observer State of Palestine” and by initiating (through allied U.N. member States) innumerable U.N. resolutions which consistently label Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and sometimes all of Jerusalem) as belonging to the “Palestinians” rather than being subject to Oslo I final status negotiations. Consequently, Israel is no longer obligated by Oslo II to refrain from applying its de jure sovereignty to Judea & Samaria or portions thereof.

Furthermore, if Arab demographic dominance requires the creation of a 22^nd Arab State comprising the “West Bank” and (despite being physically separated therefrom by more than 112 kilometers -- approximately 70 miles -- of land within Israel proper) Gaza, then why wouldn’t Arab demographic dominance in certain portions of the Galilee and the Negev Desert require the addition of these noncontiguous areas within Israel proper to that already noncontiguous Arab State? Alternatively stated, the same demographic argument that justifies the creation of a “State of Palestine” comprising Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and noncontiguous Gaza also justifies the inclusion of large portions of Israel proper within that new State.

Moreover, notwithstanding the foregoing, there is a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. So, if “Palestinian” Arabs are entitled to self-determination in the Land of Israel, where they are the minority population, why wouldn’t they also be entitled to self-determination in Jordan, where they are the majority population? It is noteworthy that the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the “State of Palestine”, supported by virtually the entire World, demands self-determination for the “Palestinians” only in the Land of Israel. In contrast, the P.L.O. does not demand -- and there is no international support for -- “Palestinian” self-determination in Jordan. Why is this? It is because the P.L.O.’s demand for self-determination within the Land of Israel is not meant to effectuate any alleged demographic, legal or moral right of the “Palestinians” to govern themselves. Rather, this demand is meant only to delegitimize the Jewish State and to create a sovereign territorial base for the P.L.O. within the Land of Israel from which it will be able serially attack and -- from its aspirational perspective -- eventually destroy Israel with an impunity that has already been conferred upon the non-sovereign P.L.O. by the entire U.N. system, the vast majority of States in the World, virtually the entire international media, and virtually all international “human rights” organizations. In summary, the P.L.O.’s demand for self-determination has nothing to do with achieving self-determination for the “Palestinians” and everything to do with reversing self-determination for the Jewish people.

Extending this demographic argument to its reductio ad absurdum, if Arabs residing in the Land of Israel are entitled to self-determination in those places where they form a majority, then why aren’t they also entitled to self-determination in other places where they form a majority, such as the city of Dearborn, Michigan in the United States, the Khuzestan province of Iran, and certain suburbs of London and Paris?

Consequently, accepting that legally-irrelevant Demographic Dominance doctrine as a basis for the creation of a 22^nd Arab State would be grossly myopic.

Hypocritically, but unsurprisingly, the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority has rejected the converse hypothesis, namely, that Jewish demographic dominance establishes Jewish territorial sovereignty in certain portions of the “West Bank” (e.g., Area C of Judea & Samaria; the neighborhoods of the Old City’s Jewish Quarter, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Shlomo, Ramat Eshkol, Neve Yaakov, Pisgat Ze’ev, Har Homa, and Ramot in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; and the neighborhoods of Admot Yishai, Avraham Avinu, Beit Romano, Tel Rumeida, and Beit Hadassah in the eastern portion of Hebron), thereby justifying the addition of those areas to Israel proper. In this context, the Palestinian Authority has repeatedly declared that demographic dominance does not create -- and is consequently not to be conflated with -- territorial sovereignty. This declaration is both legally and logically correct; and -- although not so intended by the Palestinian Authority -- it succinctly repudiates the Demographic Dominance doctrine asserted by those who seek to destroy the territorial integrity of the Land of Israel in order achieve their objection of destroying the State of Israel.

Finally, based upon an interpretive declaration by the International Committee of the Red Cross published in July 1967, the entire U.N. system thereafter declared that all Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and formerly in Gaza) were illegal under international law because their very existence violated Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of Section III of Part III of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (formally entitled the “Convention (IV) Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949”), to which treaty (but not its First Additional Protocol or Second Additional Protocol) Israel is a signatory State. It is noteworthy that, to date, Israel is the only State whose administration of captured territory has ever been declared by the ICRC and other components of the U.N. system to be in violation of Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Firstly, in order to determine that Israel’s reacquisition of its ancestral lands made its possession thereof subject to the Convention, the ICRC was forced to assert (despite the contrary language of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention) that it did not matter whether those lands ever belonged to the States (i.e., Jordan and Egypt) from whom they were taken. Secondly, in order to determine that Israel’s administration of those lands was in violation of the Convention, the ICRC was further forced to assert (despite the contrary language of Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Convention) that it did not matter whether Israel had permitted, rather than forced, some of its citizens to relocate to those reacquired lands.

It is telling that, although both Egypt and Jordan permitted its residents to relocate, respectively, from Egypt proper to Gaza and from Jordan proper to the “West Bank” (including to the eastern portion of Jerusalem) from 1948 to 1967, neither the ICRC nor any other component of the U.N. system ever claimed that Egypt or Jordan violated the transfer ban of Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on account thereof. Why? The answer is self-evident. As these two States did not force their residents to relocate to the historically-Jewish territories that they had illegally occupied in 1948, there was no violation of Paragraph 6 of Article 49. Yet, the international community has jettisoned this common-sense interpretation of the Convention when -- and only when -- the issue involves the voluntary relocation of Jews to portions of their ancestral homeland.

Torturing the language and meaning of the Convention in order to delegitimize Israel’s lawful reacquisition of its ancestral lands on behalf of the Jewish people will have unintended international consequences if the ICRC and other components of the U.N. system actually attempt to apply the foregoing analysis to a reacquiring State other than Israel.

For example, in February 2014, Russia occupied Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula after ethnic Russians (some of whom who were resident in Crimea and others of whom were infiltrated into Crimea by Russia) rebelled against Ukraine and expelled ethnic Ukrainians therefrom. And in 2022, Russia launched a brutal invasion of the remainder of Ukraine, thereby capturing more Ukrainian territory. Per the ICRC’s absurd analysis of the Convention, if Ukraine ever reaquires Crimea and/or other portions of Ukraine, then (1) Ukraine’s reacquisition of Crimea and/or other Ukrainian territory will be subject to the Convention, and (2) Ukraine will be barred by the Convention from permitting -- let alone from encouraging -- mainland Ukrainians to relocate to Crimea and/or other reacquired Ukrainian territory and to build new communities therein in an effort to repopulate that area with ethnic Ukrainians. In summary, according to the ICRC’s analysis of the Convention, Ukraine’s lawful reacquisition of Crimea and/or other Ukrainian territory would render Ukraine merely its Occupying Power rather than its Sovereign. No reacquiring State will ever accept such a twisted interpretation of international law.

Moreover, according to this same perverse analysis, Azerbaijan’s lawful reacquisition in 2020 of most of Nagorno-Karabakh and its environs (being territories whose population was overwhelmingly ethnic Armenian that had been illegally occupied by Armenia for that very reason since 1993) has rendered Azerbaijan merely its Occupying Power rather than its Sovereign, meaning that Azerbaijan’s possession of Nagorno-Karabakh is subject to the Convention, and that Azerbaijan is consequently barred from permitting -- let alone from encouraging -- its citizens to relocate thereto and to build new communities therein in an effort to repopulate that area with ethnic Azeris. However, unsurprisingly, this absurd interpretation of international law has not been applied by the ICRC or any other component of the U.N. system to Azerbaijan’s reacquisition of Azeri territory from Armenia. In truth, because it is not Israel, Azerbaijan need not fear that its demography-driven repopulation of such reacquired territory will be labeled a “war crime” by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by the U.N. Security Council, by the U.N. General Assembly, by the U.N. Human Rights Council, by the International Criminal Court or by any other component of the U.N. system.

A review of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 makes it clear that, although the conduct of hostilities (and their aftermath) between signatory (and/or voluntarily-compliant) States is always subject to the Convention, the administration of land that one State has seized from another State is subject to the Convention only if the seized land belonged to the State from which it was seized.

Article 2 of the Convention states that the Convention binds and benefits the “High Contracting Parties” thereto (i.e., the signatory States), as well as those non-signatory States which voluntarily undertake to be compliant therewith, in “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict” between such States or in “all cases of partial or total occupation of the territories of a High Contracting Party” -- meaning, in situations either of ongoing hostilities between such States (whether or not accompanied by the occupation by one such State of the territory of another such State) per Paragraph 1 thereof or of the occupation by one such State of the territory of another such State (whether or not accompanied by ongoing hostilities between such States) per Paragraph 2 thereof. In either situation, per the applicability standards set forth in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention, those provisions of the Convention which apply to captured lands -- namely, Section I of Part III thereof, comprising Articles 27 - 34 thereof (entitled “Provisions common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories”) and Section III of Part III thereof, comprising Articles 47 - 78 thereof (entitled “Occupied Territories”) -- apply only to those captured lands which belonged to the signatory (or voluntarily-compliant) State from which they were seized. Of course, in the case of the non-applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention to the conflict, all of the non-Occupation provisions of the Convention will nonetheless apply to those States’ conduct of hostilities until the termination thereof per Paragraph 1 of Article 2 thereof.

The legal distinction between (a) capturing territory from a State (rendering the issue of prior territorial sovereignty wholly irrelevant) and (b) capturing territory of a State (rendering the issue of prior territorial sovereignty crucially relevant) is essential to the Convention, which is precisely why Paragraph 2 of Article 2 thereof states that the Convention narrowly applies only to the occupation of “territories of a High Contracting Party” rather than more broadly to the occupation of “territories captured from a High Contracting Party”.

The foregoing legal distinction makes sense, as territory must have been the sovereign possession of another State before its seizure renders it occupied territory.

So, for example, if the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine had accepted the U.N.’s Palestine Partition Plan of 1947, then Gaza, Judea, and Samaria (plus much additional territory, but excluding the Jerusalem region, which was instead allocated to the U.N.’s “Special International Regime”) would have become the sovereign possession of that Arab State. In that circumstance:

(1) Israel’s seizure thereof in 1967 would have rendered that seized land occupied territory (precisely because it would have belonged to that Arab State), and

(2) Israel’s administration of that seized land would have been subject to the “Occupation” provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (i.e., Articles 27 - 34 and 47 - 78 thereof), including Article 49 thereof.

However, as the Arab leadership of western Mandatory Palestine simultaneously rejected and violated the Palestine Partition Plan by promptly initiating a war -- later joined by 7 Arab States -- to prevent its implementation, the territory allocated by the repudiated Partition Plan to that proposed Arab State never became the sovereign possession of that proposed State (due to its non-establishment) or of any established State (i.e., Egypt or Jordan) prior to the reacquisition that territory by the Jewish people (acting through Israel) in 1967.

Yet, if the “Palestinians” were not able to acquire sovereignty over territory allocated to them by the Palestine Partition Plan, then how were the Jews able to acquire sovereignty over territory allocated to them by that same Partition Plan? Although constituting only a recommendation of the U.N. General Assembly rather than an instrument of international law, the Palestine Partition Plan was the sole source of authority for the establishment of a second Arab State in original Mandatory Palestine. The “Palestinian” rejection and violation of the Partition Plan constituted a repudiation of the territorial sovereignty allocated to the “Palestinians” by the Partition Plan (due to the “Palestinian” demand that its proposed State be allocated territorial sovereignty over 100% of western Mandatory Palestine); and, for that reason, such territorial sovereignty was never established. Conversely, the Palestine Partition Plan was not the source of authority for the establishment of a Jewish State in original Mandatory Palestine. Rather, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was the sole source of authority therefor. Consequently, the non-implementation of the U.N.’s nonbinding Palestine Partition Plan did not -- and could not -- revoke or reduce Israel’s legal entitlement to territorial sovereignty over the Land of Israel.

Significantly, since Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 does not purport to determine which territory on planet Earth belongs to which State, the Convention is legally and logically irrelevant to issues of territorial sovereignty. Consequently, the Convention can never be used as a basis for determining the international legal status of captured territory (i.e., whether captured land belonged to the State from which it was seized, or belonged to the State by which it was seized, or belonged to a nonparticipating third State). That is why the Convention does not purport to determine whether Israel -- or any other State -- is occupying territory of another State.

In fact, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 does not define the terms “occupation” or “occupied”. Instead, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 relies upon the definitions of those terms employed in the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 (formally entitled the “Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.”). The Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 (commonly known as the “Hague Regulations”) are consistent with this Essay’s interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (i.e., that territory must have been the sovereign possession of another State before its seizure from that State renders it occupied territory), as Articles 42 & 43 of the Hague Regulations state that “territory is considered occupied” when and to the extent that the conquering State is able to exercise its “authority” therein by means of having seized that “authority” from the “legitimate power”. As neither Egypt nor Jordan was the “legitimate power” in Gaza or in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, Israel’s capture of those territories from those States in 1967 did not create an “occupation” under the Hague Regulations -- or consequently under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The definitions of “occupation” and “occupied” in the Hague Regulations are set forth in Articles 42 & 43 thereof, which are the first two provisions of Section III thereof (entitled “MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE”), to wit:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Article 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Consequently, it bears reiterating that, if -- and only if -- a conquered territory belonged to the State from which it was seized, then -- and only then -- are the “Occupation” provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applicable to the conquering State’s administration of that territory.

It also bears reiterating that, in 1948 (due to the violent Arab rejection and violation of the U.N.’s Palestine Partition Plan), Gaza and the “West Bank” continued to belong exclusively to the Jewish National Home (pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine), which is why Egypt and Jordan were their respective Occupiers (rather than their respective Sovereigns) from 1948 to 1967, when Israel reacquired these territories from those States in a defensive War.

It further bears reiterating that, per Article 2 thereof, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applies only to territorial disputes between States, meaning that the Convention is not applicable to territorial disputes between a State and a non-State actor, such as the P.L.O. or Hamas. This statement of international law is consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967, issued in the wake of the Six Day War, which called for the belligerent States -- and only the belligerent States -- to settle their respective territorial disputes.

Article 2 of the Convention states, in full, as follows:

Application of the Convention

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territories of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 49 of the Convention states, in full, as follows:

Deportations, transfers, evacuations

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Although Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Convention prohibits a signatory (or voluntarily-compliant) State from “deport[ing] or transfer[ring] parts of its own civilian population” from its own territory into the captured territory of another signatory (or voluntarily-compliant) State, that paragraph -- like all of Article 49 -- clearly assumes rather than establishes the existence of an Occupation regulated by the Convention; and it bears reiterating that Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza were not territories that belonged to another State (whether signatory, voluntarily-compliant, or otherwise), as these areas never belonged either to those States (i.e., Jordan and Egypt) from which they were reacquired or to the non-sovereign P.L.O., which subsequently asserted its fictitious claim of ownership thereto.

Rather, under the international legal authority of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, these captured areas -- being portions of the internationally-authorized Jewish National Home -- have continued to belong collectively only to the Jewish people, acting through its national representative, namely, the State of Israel. And, although Israel’s and its adversaries’ conduct of the Six Day War was subject to the Convention, the fact that the foregoing lands already belonged to the Jewish people prevents any provision of the Convention (including Article 49 thereof) from regulating the Jewish State’s administration of these lands.

Moreover, the international community’s absurd interpretation of Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Convention, as applied to the voluntary relocation of Jews to those areas of the Land of Israel reacquired by the Jewish people in 1967, conflicts not only with the plain language of that paragraph but also with the explicit settlement rights granted to the Jewish people by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, which states, in full, as follows:

ARTICLE 6 The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the Land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Yet, assuming arguendo that the Convention is applicable to Israel’s present administration of Area C of Judea & Samaria as well as of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, Israel has nonetheless not violated Paragraph 6 of Article 49 thereof precisely because Israel has not deported or transferred any portion of its population from its pre-1967 territory into those post-1967 territories.

Rather, portions of the Jewish people have voluntarily relocated thereto. Furthermore, this voluntary relocation effort was initially commenced without prior authorization from the Israeli government and in direct violation of the government’s initial policy of barring Jewish residence in these areas. Moreover, not all of the Jewish communities established in these areas were new, as many were former Jewish communities that had been destroyed by the Arabs during the 1948 War of Independence (or earlier) and were subsequently rebuilt by the returning Jewish population. Moreover, a substantial portion of the Jews presently residing in these areas did not even relocate thereto. Rather, they were born there. It is noteworthy that there is no provision in Article 49 of (or elsewhere in) the Convention that imposes upon an occupant State any obligation to prevent its citizens from voluntarily relocating to or from being born in territory captured by it. Nor is there any provision in Article 49 of (or elsewhere in) the Convention that requires an occupant State to prevent its voluntarily-relocated citizens from building homes (or entire towns) in territory captured by it.

The foregoing prohibitions are absent from Article 49, because the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 were drafted in the aftermath of the Holocaust, during which Nazi Germany forcibly transferred Jews and others from its sovereign territory and German-occupied territories into other German-occupied territories (e.g., Poland) for the purpose of warehousing them pending their wholesale extermination. Consequently, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was intended to address that abhorrent behavior, and only that abhorrent behavior, rather than voluntary relocation and appurtenant activities. This is precisely why voluntary relocation and appurtenant activities are not even mentioned -- let alone prohibited -- in Article 49. Unsurprisingly, in violation of the collective right of settlement granted exclusively to the Jewish people by Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, the U.N. system and virtually all member States have twisted the meaning of both Article 2 and Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in order to prevent Jews from repopulating all portions of their ancestral homeland.

In a related perversion of international law, the U.N. system and virtually all member States ironically ignore the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 when they assert that Israel is presently occupying not only the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Area C of Judea & Samaria but the entirety of the “West Bank” and Gaza (despite the fact that the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority governs Areas A & B of Judea & Samaria, while Hamas governs Gaza). However, Paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention refutes this assertion, because Israel presently exercises the functions of government only in the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Area C of the “West Bank”, meaning that even if there was an Occupation (rather than a Reacquisition) in 1967, which invoked the “Occupation” provisions of the Convention, the Convention (including the “Occupation” provisions thereof) ceased applying to Areas A & B of the “West Bank” and Gaza once Israel ceased governing those areas.

Article 6 of the Convention states in full, as follows:

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.

In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Protected persons whose release, repatriation or reestablishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention.

The employment of the phrase “functions of government” in Paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 was intended to clarify the meaning of the term “authority” in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, which defines the term “occupation” in the context of the Laws of War. Article 42 of the Hague Regulations states, in full, as follows:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Moreover, even if the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 applies to Israel’s reacquisition of these territories in 1967, and even if Israel has violated Paragraph 6 of Article 49 thereof by permitting its citizens to voluntarily relocate from Israel proper to these territories, it bears reiterating that there is no provision in the Convention that requires Israel to prevent those citizens from engaging in construction activities there. A review of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reveals the same result. The foregoing should be the common-sense response to the false axiom repeated by the international community ad nauseam that: “Jewish settlements are illegal under international law.”

Shortly after the United Nations changed the name of the “Palestinian” Permanent Observer delegation from “Palestine Liberation Organization” to “Palestine” in 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization, acting as “the Government of the State of Palestine”, attempted to join the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 by sending a letter of accession thereto to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland (an agency of the Federal Council of Switzerland, being the official depositary of the Geneva Conventions for purposes of receiving and recording the ratifications, accessions and denunciations thereto). Below is the report of that attempt, posted in the form of a footnote to the section of the website of the International Committee of the Red Cross which lists the States that either originally ratified or subsequently acceded to any of the Conventions, to wit:

Palestine: 

On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council “that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”.

On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine”.

It is noteworthy that the upgrade in diplomatic status of the P.L.O. from a “Permanent Observer Mission” to a “Non-Member Observer State”, which was engineered by the U.N General Assembly in 2012, did not actually convert the P.L.O. into a sovereign State pursuant to international law.

This is because, per the Montevideo Convention (formally entitled the “Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States” of December 26, 1933), although “[t]he political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states” (Montevideo Convention, Article 3), a political entity cannot achieve the status of statehood under international law unless and until that political entity has satisfied all of the following statehood requirements, to wit:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

(Montevideo Convention, Article 1)

Alternatively stated, under international law, a political entity’s achievement of the status of statehood is contingent upon that political entity’s reconstitution as a government that rules a resident population within a delineated territory, and possesses the ability to conduct diplomatic relations with other States on behalf of that resident population and delineated territory.

The P.L.O., acting through the Palestinian Authority, does not claim or possess a consistently-delineated territory. To some audiences (e.g., Israel, the United States, the European Union, and the U.N.), the P.L.O. claims only Gaza and the “West Bank” as its delineated territory; but to other audiences (e.g., the “Palestinian” populations of Gaza and the “West Bank”, the “Palestinian” diaspora throughout the World, the component organizations of the P.L.O., Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Iran), the P.L.O. claims Gaza, the “West Bank” and Israel proper as its delineated territory.

Furthermore, the P.L.O. includes the eastern portion of Jerusalem in its claim to the “West Bank”. However, Israel applied its de jure sovereignty to the reacquired eastern portion of Jerusalem in 1967. The P.L.O. cannot be recognized as a State under international law based upon delineated territory that is already the territory of another State.

Moreover, the P.L.O. lacks possession of and consequently lacks a functioning government over much of its minimal-claimed and maximal-claimed territory and the latter’s resident population, as Hamas possesses and rules Gaza, Israel possesses and rules Area C of the “West Bank”, and Israel possesses and rules Israel proper (including the eastern portion of Jerusalem).

Due to its foregoing failures to establish the requisite governmental authority, delineated territory, and resident population, the P.L.O. also lacks the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with other States affecting the entirety of the “State of Palestine”, however that proto-State is territorially defined for different audiences.

Consequently, the P.L.O. does not satisfy any of the requirements for the achievement of the status of statehood under international law.

Furthermore, the widespread recognition of the P.L.O. as a sovereign State (despite its lack of sovereignty indicia) no more grants to the P.L.O. that status under international law than widespread nonrecognition of Taiwan as a sovereign State (despite its abundance of sovereignty indicia) deprives Taiwan of that status under international law, as -- per Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention -- external recognition or nonrecognition of a political entity neither grants nor deprives that political entity of the status of statehood under international law.

Consequently, the U.N.’s illegal recognition of the P.L.O. as a sovereign State is yet another example of the U.N.’s continuous subversion of international law in order to delegitimize and thereby thwart Israel’s right to sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel.

Moreover, it constitutes a legal and logical contradiction for “Palestinian” leaders and the components of the U.N. system to claim that “Palestine” constitutes a State that is under Occupation, as (per the statehood requirements of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention) the international legal statuses of Statehood and Occupation are antithetical and consequently mutually exclusive. Alternatively stated, an existing State loses its international legal status as a State while it is being occupied by another State. For example, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ceased to be States under international law while they were occupied by the former Soviet Union from June 1940 to September 1991. Likewise, a non-sovereign territory (e.g., “Palestine”) cannot become a State while it is being occupied (assuming arguendo that it is being occupied) by another State.

Consequently, under international law, if “Palestine” is under Occupation by Israel, then “Palestine” cannot legally or logically claim to be a State.

Yet, notwithstanding the foregoing, due to the U.N. General Assembly’s upgrade of the diplomatic status of the P.L.O. from a “Permanent Observer Mission” to a “Non-Member Observer State” in 2012, Switzerland, as the depository of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, permitted the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” to join those Conventions in April 2014. This is unsurprising in light of the fact that Switzerland voted in favor of upgrading the diplomatic status of the P.L.O. in 2012.

However, per Article 149 of the Convention, only a signatory (or voluntarily-compliant) State which was a party to the relevant conflict may invoke the provisions of the Convention against an alleged violator thereof. Consequently, even if the Convention were to be applicable to Israel’s present administration of portions of the “West Bank” (which it is not), the P.L.O. qua the “State of Palestine” still cannot lawfully invoke the Convention against Israel, because the P.L.O. has never claimed that it was a State during the Six Day War of 1967, meaning that not even the P.L.O. presently claims -- nor could it ever claim -- that it was a State party to that War. In fact, as stated elsewhere in this Essay, the P.L.O. did not even claim to be a State until 1988, which was 21 years after Israel reacquired its stolen territories from Egypt and Jordan.

Article 149 of the Convention states, in full, as follows:

Enquiry procedure

At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

It is noteworthy that the statehood-claiming “Palestinians” are not even a distinct ethnicity. Rather, they are merely a geographic subset of the Arab world. Their assertion of a “Palestinian” ethnic identity constitutes an elaborate propaganda ruse, which

(1) was -- together with the Palestine Liberation Organization itself -- created by the Arab League in 1964,

(2) began to be frequently enunciated by the P.L.O., the Islamic World, and the Communist World in 1968 (shortly after the Six Day War), and

(3) was eventually accepted -- as well as aided -- by the entire international community.

The conjuring of a “Palestinian” ethnic identity constituted a shrewd tactic to confront the Jewish people’s historical claim to the Land of Israel with a more compelling “Palestinian” claim to the Land of Israel. The strategic objective of this tactic was -- and is -- to delegitimize the Jewish people’s moral, historical, and legal claim to the Land.

As explicitly declared in Article 1 and Article 3 of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s National Covenant of 1964 (excerpts of which are republished below), the Arab clans that compose the “Palestinians” are not ethnically different from the multitude of Arab clans ranging through 21 sovereign Arab nations from Mauritania in the West to Oman in the East. That is because the ethnic homeland of the Arab people is the Arabian Peninsula, which served as the point of origin for the 7^th Century Arab invasion and conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. Recognizing this fact, none of the foundational international instruments which deal with the Conflict ever referred to the Arab inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine as the “Palestinian people”. For, prior to Israel's resurrection as a Jewish nation-state in 1948, only the Jewish inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine (although sometimes referred to as “Palestinian Jews” by the British and other third parties) actually identified themselves as “Palestinians”, while the Arab inhabitants thereof (although sometimes referred to as “Palestinian Arabs” by the British and other third parties) instead insisted on identifying themselves as “southern Syrians”, which expressed the widespread belief among “Palestinian” Arabs that the non-sovereign region of Palestine belonged to Syria.

The foregoing belief and the consequent corollary belief that Palestine was not entitled to a separate statehood, were both expressed via the following resolutions adopted by the first session of the Palestine Arab Congress, held in Jerusalem from January 27, 1919 to February 10, 1919, to wit:

“We consider Palestine to be nothing but part of Arab Syria, and it [i.e., Palestine] has never been separated from it [i.e., Syria] at any stage. We are tied to it [i.e., Syria] by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographic bounds."

"Our district Southern Syria or [as it is alternatively known] Palestine should not be separated from the independent Arab Syrian government, and be free from all foreign influence and protection.”

Almost two decades later, that longstanding Arab identification as “southern Syrian” rather than as “Palestinian” was succinctly summarized by Auni Bey Abd al-Hadi, Secretary-General of the Arab Higher Committee of Mandatory Palestine, in his testimony to the Palestine Royal Commission (commonly known as the “Peel Commission”), created by Britain in response to the “Great Arab Revolt” in western Mandatory Palestine (1936 - 1939):

“There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was, for centuries, part of Syria.”

In deference to this longstanding non-assertion of “Palestinian” ethnic identity, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 referred to the local Arab population as the “existing non-Jewish communities” (rather than as the “Palestinians” or as the “Palestinian people”), and United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 181 (II) of 1947 (commonly known as the “Palestine Partition Plan”) referred only to the creation of an Arab (rather than an ethnic “Palestinian”) State and to the prospective citizenry thereof as Arabs (rather than as ethnic “Palestinians”), while United Nations Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967 referred to the displaced Arab population only as “the refugee problem”.

In fact, in the Palestine Partition Plan’s only reference to a “Palestinian people”, the Plan refers to “the two Palestinian peoples” then inhabiting Mandatory Palestine, meaning ethnic Jews and ethnic Arabs, to wit:

(b) To foster co-operation among all the inhabitants of the city in their own interests as well as in order to encourage and support the peaceful development of the mutual relations between the two Palestinian peoples throughout the Holy Land; …

(Palestine Partition Plan, Part III, Section C, Paragraph 1(b))

Moreover, as recently as 1980, the U.N. was still referring to Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem as “Arab territories” (rather than as “Palestinian territories”), to wit:

1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem

(U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 476 of June 30, 1980, operative paragraph 1)

Alternatively stated, the very language of these international instruments confirms that the vaunted concept of a “Palestinian” ethnic identity is, in fact, a propaganda device of historically-recent invention popularized (together with the neologism “West Bank” -- a de-Judaizing substitution for the historical names Judea & Samaria plus the eastern portion of Jerusalem) in the aftermath of the Six Day War of 1967, which -- in tribute to that ancient machination of the Roman Empire which remade Judea (Land of the Jews) into Palestine (Land of the Philistines) -- was designed by the Islamic World to delegitimize the almost 4,000-year-old Jewish national claim to those areas of biblical Israel to which the Mandatory rights of Jewish settlement and self-determination are still applicable.

Further proving the point that the “Palestinians” constitute a fabricated ethnicity is the fact that, by the time that Israel had declared its independence as a Jewish nation-state in 1948, a substantial portion of the “Palestinian” Arab population resident in the cis-Jordania portion of Mandatory Palestine originated, not even from that territory, but rather from the surrounding Arab States. The mass immigration of impoverished Arabs to the Land of Israel during the Mandatory era was triggered mainly by the new economic opportunities created by the mass Jewish immigration to the Land authorized by the League of Nations via the latter’s creation of the Mandate for Palestine in 1920.

In recognition of the recency of Arab immigration to western Mandatory Palestine, UNRWA has defined “Palestinian” refugees as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” (per the website of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in the section entitled “Palestine Refugees”, under the heading entitled “Who Are Palestine Refugees?”), meaning that any Egyptian, Transjordanian, Iraqi, Moroccan, Algerian, Libyan, Syrian, Lebanese or other foreign Arab who immigrated to western Mandatory Palestine during the twilight of its existence (i.e., June 1, 1946 to May 15, 1948) and thereafter departed therefrom as a result of “the 1948 conflict” automatically became a displaced “Palestinian”.

Furthermore, despite accession by the “Palestinians” to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the fact remains that no part of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza (nor, for that matter, any part of Israel within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines) ever collectively belonged to them. This is because never in the annals of History, did the ancestors of the people who now call themselves “Palestinians” ever rule -- or even reside in -- a nation-state or kingdom of “Palestine”, as such a sovereign political entity has never existed.

If the foregoing assertion were to be challenged by anti-Israel polemicists as a denial of History, then the proponents of the existence of an ancient “Palestine”, populated and ruled by purported ethnic “Palestinians”, ought to be able to easily answer the following straightforward questions:

1. Who was the first ethnic “Palestinian” ruler of ancient “Palestine”, and what were the commencement and terminal dates of that ruler’s reign?

2. What was the capital city of ancient “Palestine”, when was it so designated, and which ethnic “Palestinian” ruler was responsible for its designation.

None of these questions have answers, simply because such an ancient “Palestine”, populated and ruled by purported ethnic “Palestinians”, has never existed.

Moreover, during the 19 years (from 1948 to 1967) that Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza, were illegally occupied, respectively, by Jordan and Egypt, neither the “Palestinian” Arab inhabitants of those areas nor the larger Arab and Muslim Worlds ever asserted the existence therein of either an ethnically distinct “Palestinian people” or a historical nation-state (or kingdom or other sovereign entity) known as “Palestine”.

Furthermore, virtually all of the local Arab leadership of Transjordanian-occupied “Palestine” quickly eschewed any notion of “Palestinian” identity in favor of Transjordanian identity, declaring during a conference held in Jericho on December 1, 1948 that “Palestine” should be annexed by Transjordan, and that Transjordanian king Abdullah bin al-Hussein (commonly known as “Abdullah I”), who had immigrated to Transjordan from Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia), was also the king of “Palestine”. And, tellingly, during those same 19 years, neither the “Palestinian” Arabs nor any nation of the World nor the International Committee of the Red Cross nor any component of the United Nations system ever asserted that the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to Jordanian and/or Egyptian governance of occupied “Palestine”. Moreover, from the termination of Jordan’s Occupation of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem in June 1967 until July 1988, Jordanian maps continued to depict these lost territories as part of Jordan (rather than as “Palestine”), while it continued to depict only Israel (within its former 1949 armistice demarcation lines) as “Palestine”. It is consequently not surprising that during the Jordanian and Egyptian Occupations, there was never any demand from any “Palestinians” for the establishment in the “West Bank” and/or Gaza of a new Arab State (or States), or even an autonomous local government (or governments).

In fact, the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, after having emphatically insisted that they were “southern Syrians” prior to the 1948 War of Independence, enthusiastically accepted that they were “Transjordanians” and then “Jordanians” from 1948 to 1967 -- only to assert their identity for the first time as “Palestinians” after the Jewish people’s reacquisition of these territories in the 1967 Six Day War.

This leads to the conclusion that, if resident Arabs and the surrounding Arab States had accepted the U.N.’s “Palestine Partition Plan” in 1947, the Arab State created thereby would not have been called the “State of Palestine”, and its Arab citizens would consequently not have identified themselves as “Palestinians”, because from 1920 until 1948 resident Arabs associated the labels “Palestine” and “Palestinian” exclusive with the hated Jewish National Home. So, that new Arab State would probably have been called the “Arab Republic of South Syria”, and its Arab citizens would have consequently identified themselves as “South Syrians” rather than as “Palestinians”. It is indeed ironic that these Arabs and their progeny have now embraced, as part of a fake ethnicity, the very labels that they had previously eschewed.

Moreover, per Article 24 (as read, in context, together with Article 26) of the “National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization” of 1964 (was issued three years prior to the Six Day War), the P.L.O. publicly disavowed any claim of sovereignty to the purported “Palestinian” territories then being illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt. The P.L.O.’s explicit disavowal of sovereignty to the “West Bank” and Gaza in 1964 was not surprising, as the P.L.O. was created that year by the Arab States (including Jordan and Egypt), acting through the Arab League, to be the latter’s genocidal proxy militia, thereby succeeding to the genocidal role that had been previously played by the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” in the months prior to the pan-Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. As the sole objective of the Arab League’s new proxy militia was the destruction of the Jewish State (then existing solely within its former armistice demarcation lines of 1949), the former had no interest in any making any claim of sovereignty to the “West Bank” or Gaza.

The “National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization” of May 28, 1964 declared, in part, as follows:

Introduction

In the name of Almighty, the Magnificent, the most Merciful,

We, the Palestinian Arab people, which waged fierce and continuous battles to safeguard its homeland, to defend its dignity and honour, and which offered all through the years continuous caravans of immortal martyrs, and wrote the noblest pages of sacrifice, offering and giving.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, which faced the forces of evil, injustice and aggression, against which the forces of international Zionism and colonialism conspired and worked to displace it, dispossessed it from its homeland and property, abused what is holy in it, and which in spite of all this refused to weaken or submit.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, which believes in its Arabism and in its right to regain its homeland, to realize its freedom and dignity, and which has determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war until complete and final victory has been attained.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, depending on our right of self-defence and the complete restoration of our lost homeland a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the Charter of the United Nations and in implementation of the principles of human rights and comprehending the international political relations, with its various ramifications and limits, and considering the past experiences in all that pertains to the causes of the catastrophe, and the means to face it.

And embarking from the Palestine Arab reality, and for the sake of the honour of the Palestinian individual and his right to a free and dignified life.

And realizing the national grave responsibility placed upon our shoulders, for the sake of all this.

We, the Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Covenant and vow to realize it.

Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab countries which together form the large Arab homeland.

Article 2. Palestine [i.e., former western Mandatory Palestine] with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit.

Article 3. The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab nation. It shares the suffering and aspiration of the Arab nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.

Article 4. The people of Palestine determine their destiny when they complete the liberation of their homeland in accordance with their own wishes and free will and choice.

. . .

Article 11. The Palestinian people firmly believes in Arab unity, and in order to play its role in realizing this goal, it must, at this stage of its struggle, preserve its Palestinian personality and all its constituents. It must strengthen the consciousness of its existence and stand against any attempt or plan that may weaken or disintegrate its personality.

Article 12. Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary goals; each prepares for the attainment of the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, and the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity. Working for both must go side by side.

Article 13. The destiny of the Arab nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Arab question. From this firm bond stem the effort and struggle of the Arab nation to liberate Palestine. The people of Palestine assume a vanguard role in achieving this sacred national goal.

Article 14. The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab nation, Governments and peoples, the Palestinian people being in the forefront. For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its military, spiritual and material potentialities; specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable it to perform its role in liberating its homeland.

. . .

Article 17. The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the lapse of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.

Article 18. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered a fraud. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of History or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are the citizens of the countries to which they belong.

Article 19. Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist and segregationist in its configurations and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East in particular and to the international community in general. Because of this the people of Palestine is worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.

Article 20. The causes of peace and security and the needs of right and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguard true relationships among peoples and to maintain the loyalty of citizens to their homelands, that they consider Zionism an illegal movement and outlaw its presence and activities.

Article 21. The Palestine people believes in the principle of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the right of peoples to practice these principles. It also supports all international efforts to bring about peace on the basis of justice and free international cooperation.

Article 22. The people of Palestine believe in peaceful co-existence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no co-existence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.

Article 23. In realizing the goals and principles of this Covenant the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its complete role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the fundamental law of this Organization.

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip [occupied by Egypt] or in the Hammah area [occupied by Syria]. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

Article 25. This Organization is charged with the movement of the Palestine people in its struggle to liberate its homeland in all liberational, organizational, political and financial matters, and in all other needs of the Palestine Question in the Arab and international spheres.

Article 26. The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab Governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab State.

. . .

Since the P.L.O.’s original Covenant explicitly recognized the “West Bank” (i.e., Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount) and Gaza as belonging to other Arab States (per Article 24), even declaring that the P.L.O. “… does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab State” (Article 26), the only “Arab homeland” of “Palestine” (Article 1) which that organization sought to “liberate” in 1964 was the State of Israel within its 1949 armistice demarcation lines. However, in response to the Jewish people's reclamation in the 1967 Six Day War of those illegally-occupied areas, the Palestine Liberation Organization thereupon revised its National Covenant on July 17, 1968 to, inter alia, remove the operative language of Article 24 therefrom, thereby reversing its prior declaration that those areas did not constitute or otherwise belong to “Palestine” and thereby -- for the first time -- asserting a “Palestinian” claim of sovereignty thereto. Being indisputably based upon the changing status of Jewish territorial reclamation, the “Palestinian” renunciation of sovereignty and subsequent cancellation of that renunciation demonstrate that the “nationalism” espoused by the “Palestinians” has nothing to do with their professed desire to create a “Palestinian” State for themselves in the “West Bank” and Gaza, and everything to do with their actual desire to dismantle the existing Jewish State.

The foregoing merely reinforces the absurdity of the worldwide assertion that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” territory. For, it bears reiterating that, in 1967, Israel reacquired Gaza from Egypt, and reacquired Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem from Jordan -- not from the “Palestinians”. Consequently, if those captured areas were to actually belong to the “Palestinians”, it would mean that Egypt and Jordan were occupying “Palestinian” territory from 1948 to 1967. Yet, prior to the Six Day War of 1967, no United Nations resolution ever claimed that either Gaza or the “West Bank” constituted occupied territory -- let alone occupied “Palestinian” territory. Nor did any U.N. specialized agency or U.N.-affiliated organization ever make that claim. Nor did any State ever make that claim. Nor did any international media outlet ever make that claim. And nor did any “human rights” organization ever make that claim. Finally, per Articles 24 & 26 of the P.L.O. Covenant of 1964, not even the “Palestinians” themselves ever made that claim.

However, as soon as Israel reacquired those portions of the Jewish people’s historical homeland, all of the foregoing parties, with one notable exception, began to hypocritically and falsely assert that very claim, but only prospectively -- and only against Israel. That notable exception was Jordan, which, from June 1967 until July 1988, continued to insist that the “West Bank” belonged, not to the “Palestinians”, but to it. However, in July 1988, Jordan announced that it was abandoning its illegitimate claim to the “West Bank” (except for its claim to be the guardian of the Muslim shrines on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount) in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization (then based in Tunis, Tunisia), which soon thereafter declared itself to be the “State of Palestine” in exile.

This situation evokes the equally-absurd territorial claim once made against biblical Israel by the Ammonites, whose former region of Gilead, located east of the Jordan River, had (hundreds of years earlier) been captured by the Amorites, after which Israel took that territory, thereby prompting the Ammonites to falsely claim that Israel had taken and was occupying Ammonite territory, despite the fact that Israel had taken that territory from the Amorites -- not from the Ammonites. As the Hebrew Bible relates:

“Jepthah [the leader of the Hebrews residing in Gilead] sent emissaries to the king of the Children of Ammon, saying, 'What is there between you and me that you have come to me to make war in my Land?' The king of the Children of Ammon said to Jephthah's emissaries, 'Because Israel took away my lands when it ascended from Egypt, from the Arnon [River] to the Jabbok [River] to the Jordan [River]; so now return them in peace.' And Jephthah once again sent emissaries to the king of the Children of Ammon, and said to him, 'So said Jephthah: Israel did not take away the land of ... the Children of Ammon ... [but rather] ... Israel took possession of the entire land of the Amorite ... And now HaShem, the God of Israel, has driven out the Amorite from before His People Israel -- yet you would [presume to] possess it? Surely, whatever your god Chemosh lets you possess, that you shall possess; and whichever [people] God drives away from before us, that [Land] we shall possess ... I have not sinned against you; but you do me wrong to make war against me! Let HaShem, the Judge, decide today between the Children of Israel and the Children of Ammon!”

(Judges 11:12-27).

When the Ammonites persisted in making War against Israel, not only did Israel successfully defend its sovereignty over Gilead, but it also wreaked havoc upon the cities of Ammon (see Judges 11:28-33).

Consequently, it is absurd to claim that Israel stole “Palestinian” land, because, that land was stolen, not by Israel, but by Egypt and Transjordan (in 1948). And it was stolen, not from the “Palestinians”, but from the Jewish people.

Moreover, it also bears reiterating that the ancient Philistines, after whom the “Palestinians” have named themselves, were not even Arabs.

Furthermore, in light of “Palestinian” claims to aboriginal status, it is both ironic and noteworthy that the English-language cognate words “Palestine” and “Philistine”, as well as the Arabic-language word “Filastin” (meaning: “Palestine”), are all derived (via Latin and, before that, via Greek) from the biblical Hebrew-language word “Pelishtim”, which idiomatically means “Philistines”, but whose literal meaning is “Invaders”. It is indeed telling that the “Palestinians” have created for themselves a fake ethnic identity whose very name originates, not from their own Arabic language, but rather from the Hebrew language -- and literally means “Invaders”.

Although officials of the Palestinian Authority -- in an effort to conjure a “Palestinian” link to the Land of Israel that predates Jewish habitation in the Land (which dates from circa 1400 BCE) -- have frequently declared that the “Palestinians” have continuously resided in the Land as lineal descendants of the (non-Arab) Canaanites and/or the (non-Arab) Philistines, it is noteworthy that neither the P.L.O.’s “National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization” of 1964 nor Hamas’ “The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement” of 1988 make such an assertion, both of which instead emphasize that the “Palestinians” are Arabs.

However, assuming arguendo that the “Palestinian” Arabs are indeed the descendants of Canaanites and/or Philistines (rather than later implants), they should remember that, according to the Koran, notwithstanding the earlier residency of those pagan peoples in the Land of Israel, Allah granted to the Jewish people the exclusive right to inherit the Land; and, through Moses, Allah instructed them to ascend thereto in order to obtain that inheritance, to wit:

“Bear in mind the words of Musa [Moses] to his people. He said: ‘Remember, my people, the favor which Allah has bestowed upon you. He has raised up prophets among you, made you into kings, and given to you that which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my people, the Holy Land [Land of Israel] which Allah has assigned for you. Do not retreat, or you shall be ruined.’”

(Koran 5:20-21)

Moreover, also according to the Koran, Allah knew that, in order for the Jewish people to populate and rule the Land, they would have to war with, subdue and even expel the existent inhabitants (see Koran 5:22-23), which included the Canaanites and the Philistines. Consequently, by claiming to be Canaanites and/or Philistines, the “Palestinian” Arabs invalidate their claim to the Land of Israel from an Islamic perspective.

Lastly, even the quintessential symbol of the “Palestinian people”, namely, former P.L.O. chairman and former Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat, serves to prove its nonexistence. Arafat was an Egyptian national born in Cairo, Egypt in 1929 -- approximately four decades before any assertion by anyone of the existence of an ethnically distinct “Palestinian people” -- who continued to live in Egypt through the creation of present-day Israel (i.e., he was neither a “Palestinian” nor a refugee). Moreover, the first P.L.O. chairman, Ahmad Shukeiri, although often labeled as a “Palestinian”, was a Saudi Arabian national born in Tebnine, Lebanon in 1908.

In truth, the post-1967 descriptor “Palestinian” -- like the descriptors “Texan” and “Californian” -- is a geographical descriptor rather than an ethnic descriptor, as confirmed by U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181(II) of 1947, Part III, Section C, Paragraph 1(b), which references “the two Palestinian peoples” then inhabiting Mandatory Palestine, meaning ethnic Jews and ethnic Arabs.

The descriptor “Palestinian” presently refers to any ethnic Arab who resides or whose ancestor resided on territory comprising former western Mandatory Palestine -- a geographical area delineated by the League of Nations in 1920. This assertion is supported by the very language of the P.L.O.’s National Covenant of 1964, which rarely refers to its constituency as “the Palestinians” or as “the Palestinian people” (precisely because the geographical descriptor “Palestinian” was the detested label by which the resident Jewish population had identified itself during the Mandatory period), but frequently refers to its constituency as “the people of Palestine” (e.g., Articles 4, 13, 19 & 22) or “the Palestine people” (e.g., Articles 17, 21 & 25), thereby describing the latter’s connection to “Palestine” almost exclusively in geographical rather than ethnic terminology. The only consistent ethnic label used by the P.L.O. in its National Covenant of 1964 to describe its constituency is the descriptor “Arab” (e.g., the Introduction, Articles 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 25).

Moreover, it is telling that when the P.L.O. first employs the descriptor “the Palestinian people” in Article 11 of its National Covenant of 1964 to describe the “personality” of its Arab constituency, it states that this descriptor will be used to “preserve its Palestinian personality” and to “strengthen the consciousness of its existence”, but only “at this stage of its struggle”, thereby implying that the P.L.O.’s use of this descriptor constitutes a crucial propaganda tactic in its genocidal war against the Jewish State.

Due to the fact that the “Palestinians” are no more a distinct ethnicity than are “Texans” or “Californians”, they do not have any right (whether legal, historical, or moral) -- in derogation of paramount Jewish collective rights to the Land of Israel -- to establish a sovereign State within any portion of the Land in order to express a distinct ethnic identity that does not -- and has never -- existed.

It bears reiterating that the bogus claim of “Palestinian” ethnicity is merely an elaborate (and -- thus far -- diplomatically successful) ruse to disguise the true pan-Arab and pan-Islamic goal, which is to dismember and then eradicate the Jewish nation-state of Israel.

Occasionally, even “Palestinian” leaders themselves publicly admit as much. As candidly stated by Zahir Muhsein, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Military Department and a member of its Executive Committee, to wit:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, Today, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak, Today, about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan -- which is a sovereign state with defined borders -- cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While, as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

(excerpt from interview with Zahir Muhsein in Netherlands-based newspaper “Dagblad de Verdieping Trouw”, March 31, 1977).

And, as subsequently declared by Azmi Bishara, an Arab citizen of Israel and a professor of philosophy and cultural studies who later became the leader of Balad, an Arab political party that was elected to Israel’s parliament based upon its anti-Israel platform, to wit:

“Well, I do not think there is a ‘Palestinian’ nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so, and I did not change my mind. I do not think there is a ‘Palestinian’ nation. I think it is a colonialist invention -- a ‘Palestinian’ nation. When were there any ‘Palestinians’? Where did it come from? I think there is an Arab nation. I never turned out to be a ‘Palestinian’ nationalist, despite my decisive struggle against the [Israeli] Occupation. I think that until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of Greater Syria.”

(excerpt from televised interview with Azmi Bishara by Yaron London of Israel-based Channel 2 TV in 1999)

Subsequently, the inauthenticity of “Palestinian” ethnicity was publicly reiterated -- due to economic necessity -- by Fathi Hammad, Hamas’ Minister of the Interior and of National Security, as part of his demand that Egypt must provide more diesel fuel to Hamas-ruled Gaza, to wit:

“Allah be praised, we all have Arab roots; and every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots -- whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. So where is your affection and mercy? . . . Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called [by the last name] al-Masri [meaning: “the Egyptian”]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Damietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you.”

(excerpt from Fathi Hammad’s speech aired on Egypt-based al-Hekmah TV, March 23, 2012)

In this context, it is noteworthy that, more than 3,400 years ago, God declared to Moses:

“They [Children of Israel] provoked Me with a non-god, angered Me with their vanities; so shall I provoke them with a non-people, with a vile nation shall I anger them.”

(Deuteronomy 32:21)

However, even if the “Palestinians” were an authentic ethnicity, international law does not recognize a people’s right to self-determination if the exercise of that right is part of a plan to destroy and replace an existing State (i.e., Israel). Alternatively stated, international law is not a suicide pact.

In summary, the unending deluge of public declarations by the Gentile nations (and by the international organizations through which they interact) that portions of the Land of Israel are actually the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, as well as the general hostility and ostracism experienced by Israel in all manner of international forums, has nothing to do with international law and everything to do with international politics, which, in Israel’s case, is propelled by a toxic mixture of Jew-hatred and economic self-interest.

Regarding the Jewish State, international law has been so dismembered by international politics that its precepts have been habitually distorted in order to protect and reward the defeated Aggressor and to deter and punish the undefeated Victim. Alternatively stated, the international community intentionally distorts and thereby undermines international law and the rules-based global order by maliciously elevating politicized anti-Israel missives issued by the innumerable components of the U.N. system above the international treaty entitlements that belong to the Jewish people (i.e., the exclusive national rights granted to the Jewish people in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, as made binding upon the U.N. system via Article 80 of the U.N. Charter). Consequently, it is unsurprising that, in an attempt to adorn the ongoing War against Zionism with a veneer of diplomatic legitimacy, the international community willfully falsifies and thereby willfully subverts international law.

Accordingly, despite the layers of falsehoods, half-truths and distortions that have encrusted this subject matter over many past decades, international law remains Today as it was in 1920, meaning that exclusive sovereignty over the Land of Israel (comprising cis-Jordania as well as the Golan Heights portion of trans-Jordania) belongs only to the Jewish people, acting through their national representative, namely, the State of Israel. This means that, per international law, there is no difference between the collective right of the Jewish people to populate and apply their sovereignty to Tel Aviv (which is on the Coastal Plain, west of the former 1949 armistice demarcation line with Jordan) and the collective right of the Jewish people to populate and apply their sovereignty to Hebron (which is in Judea, east of the former 1949 armistice demarcation line with Jordan) and to Bethel (which is in Samaria, east of the former 1949 armistice demarcation line with Jordan).

Consequently, in reality, it is the Arab population thereof that is occupying Jewish Land.

However, if the World were nonetheless to complain that Israel's possession of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and formerly of Gaza), even if lawful, nevertheless deprives the “Palestinian” Arab population thereof of a separate independent homeland, then the World should be reminded that present-day Jordan -- comprising 77% of former Mandatory Palestine and, in consequence thereof, overwhelmingly comprised of a “Palestinian” Arab population -- is already that separate independent homeland.

Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas admitted as much when, during his meeting with Jordanian Prince Ali Bin al-Hussein in Amman, Jordan on June 2, 2015, he declared:

“This is a friendly meeting between Jordan and Palestine, which will continue to be as they have been: one people in two countries.”

(as reported in the Britain-based, Saudi-owned “Asharq al-Awsat” newspaper, June 2, 2015)

Lastly, it is ironic that the nations of the “enlightened” West (i.e., the World’s liberal democracies), which demand “freedom” for the “Palestinian” Arabs as means for the latter to terminate their longstanding War against Israel, have refused or neglected to analyze whether carving out a 22^nd Arab State from the Land of Israel would actually achieve either objective.

It would not.

Firstly, both the Palestinian Authority (ruling in the “West Bank”) and Hamas (ruling in Gaza) are dictatorial regimes which openly repudiate every aspect of the liberal democratic ethos, such as freedom of speech, freedom to publicly criticize the government, freedom to peacefully protest against the government, freedom of religion (including the freedom to convert from Islam to another religion), freedom of association (including freedom of sexual preference and freedom of business enterprise), freedom of the press, the right to gender equality, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from torture while under arrest, and the right to financial transparency from the government. So, although not a single Arab in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” would continue to be ruled by Israel, Arabs residing in a future “State of Palestine”, would not actually be free. On the contrary, they would continue to live under two of the most repressive and corrupt regimes on planet Earth.

Secondly, both the P.L.O. qua the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are Muslim-supremacist organizations which promote Jew-hatred and the destruction of the Jewish State to their respective populations as paramount religious and cultural values via (a) propaganda mechanisms (such as school curricula, mosque sermons, speeches by regime elites, media programming, sporting events, memorial events, and other public events), and (b) financial incentives (such as generous everlasting monthly stipends from the Palestinian Authority to “Palestinian” terrorists in Israeli prisons, which stipends continue to be paid even after such terrorists are released from prison, and also to the families of dead “Palestinian” terrorists -- and the foregoing “pay for slay” stipends are even being given to the imprisoned terrorists and to the families of the dead terrorists who invaded Israel proper and perpetrated the horrific massacre of October 7, 2023). Even Israel’s abandonment of the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Area C of Judea & Samaria to the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the Palestinian Authority (which already rules Areas A & B of Judea & Samaria) in order to permit the latter to establish a 22^nd Arab State on 100% of the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” would do nothing to palliate -- let alone terminate -- these regimes’ endemic Antisemitism and their resultant desire to destroy Israel proper.

Consequently, a future “State of Palestine” would continue to be both unfree and belligerent.

© Mark Rosenblit

Return to main page